Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma ^message 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, let the bot do its work. And certainly, don't edit war when another editor reverts your premature archiving. [1] [2] If someone else wants to comment, please be civil and give them the courtesy of doing so. Dayewalker (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he has a little issue with that. I informed him that several editors had expressed that they didn't like what he was doing and that his uncivil reverts were looking like inappropriate behaviour and his reply was a revert of my comment on his talk page with an uncivil edit summary.[3].--Crossmr (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also prefer if we just let the bot run its course. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised that certain users who have had a history of vocally disagreeing with my views or methods, have responded here indifferently (perhaps with whatever personal motivations), but certainly, it gets the proportionate amount of attention in return. And sometimes, they simply don't get the message the first time around.
• The issue of closing threads, like in the diffs by Dayewalker, is a separate issue. But seeing that it was brought up, no less than 2 admins want that particular thread closed due to how it's being dragged out.
• Anyway, coming back to the matter on hand, I see a clear division in opinion. (I fully dismiss the argument that there is consensus to not archive threads earlier than the bot.)
• I've taken the suggestion made by several users on board in that I give it about 12 hours (often a bit more, occasionally a bit less) after it's resolved, before putting threads in the archives. It's certainly a reasonable request, and I've adhered to it.
• But I'll reiterate, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. I also will take this opportunity to thank the several other users who have also been archiving threads recently - it helps clear the mess up here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And with that, ANI is now over 447,000 bytes. Ooof. Hard to believe no one takes my proposal to split up ANI seriously. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on continuing to archive, please link the archive to which you will be archiving, as the bot does. However, since opinions are pretty much split on whether it's a good thing, the status quo should be upheld (i.e. leave the archiving to the bot). –xeno (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, threads have traditionally been archived manually too - it's just it would be the odd thread, rather than a few that make the ANI page look less messy/clogged up/whatever you want to call it. But your request is very reasonable - I'll link to the archive threads for reference. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that if a thread is obviously resolved, it's fine to archive it on the spot. It might be nice to have a section like "Fast track archived threads" or something, which just listed the headers of each section, and a link to the archive. That way anyone really interested in still seeing the thread could do so, but we wouldn't have to lug it around on ANI "just in case" someone in another time zone wanted to see it. --Elonka 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea worth looking into as well - not sure how to implement it myself, but I think it's another way to resolve space issues here. :D

Anyway, Wknight94, we're back down to about 300 000 bytes. :) Ncmvocalist (talk)

So traditionally the odd thread was archived, not massive amounts. That doesn't give you precedent and consensus to suddenly archive tons of threads at once. You don't have consensus to change that. The only thing people support are early archiving is when threads are clearly resolved. Not on whether or not you've made a judgment call on if you think anyone can add anything of value to it. The fact is if someone disagrees with your archiving a particular thread and reverts you, you shouldn't become rude and try to force it through again. You don't own the page and if someone cares enough about a thread to revert it and add something to it, unless it is a fairly useless comment (like a me too! or just some random gibberish), it isn't your place to get rid of it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Real Solution

Simply use the {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. It alleviates the page from crowding, but does not place the thread into the actual archive. The bot will take care of it eventually if no one further posts. Just make sure you put the resolved tag outside of the collapsed box, with a good description of the solution. Also make sure the title/heading is an accurate description of the thread. Problem solved. Beam 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem people are having is with the {{PAGESIZE}}, not the visual clutter. –xeno (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that page size can truly be helped. The page size is going to fluctuate heavily dependent on how many actual issues are out there. So while you might be able to archive some truly resolved threads, it could just as easily be filled back up and more with genuine issues just as quickly. Perhaps, some sort of use of subpage with templates (similar to how AfD works) might be useful. All active discussions could be in a category (ANI active discussions) and show up on this page, when a discussion is completely resolved, the category is removed and the discussion is archived. The only real way you're going to keep the page size down is do something that applies to all discussions, not just ones that some people may feel have ended.--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Subpages you say? Take a look at my proposal at WT:AN#Solution to size and subpage issues. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Beam, that just makes the problem worse. The discussion is still there, people can still comment on it, yet they are confused because someone arbitrarily said "no moar comments".
  Here's a solution—don't try and stifle discussion, and let the bot do its job. (Interestingly, Ncmvocalist dismissed my asking him to stop it the same way he dismissed most of the above comments that told him to stop it.) —Giggy 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  Regardless of how many people who line up to tell him not to do this, he dismisses them out of hand and uncivilly. Frankly it is growing rather tiresome. If he can't respond civilly to the community that is going to have to be addressed.--Crossmr (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the fact certain users love trolling, and continuing to troll in these threads, including this one.
• An example of the problem, ironically right under this very thread: most (if not all 9) of the admins who were responding to the thread, come to the same conclusion, yet 1 editor (and the subject editor of the ANI) persistently insists foul play, refusing to let the thread close and refusing to put up any other evidence in any thread.
• Some of these users upon realizing they can't troll in those threads because they've been archived, decide to exercise exceptionally poor judgement by going to troll on the talk page of whichever user has archived them. Whether it's unreasonable demands, tendentious argument, unfounded claims, or something else that's left on the talk page, they "simply don't get the message the first time around" (as I've stated earlier). Fortunately, they can be promptly given the appropriate level of proportion and tolerance in that venue. One such user has responded persistently above.
• Meanwhile, the concerns in the actual ANI threads have been resolved as far as administrators are concerned, while the page grows increasingly messy and large in size (making the poor machines that access this site, struggle). Most intelligent users are capable of understanding that any additional concerns/evidence they have, or if they want an outcome reviewed or re-reviewed, can all be put in a new section. If they feel (in contrast to those handling the thread) that it's unresolved, they surely can contact the users who handled the incident(s) if they genuinely want more perspective or context or understanding, as most users are willing to provide it.
• Concerns have been expressed by many sysops and quite a few editors, moreso in other venues, but here too, that ANI is becoming either messy, too long and unmanageable - they've supported archiving threads that are done/resolved, rather than waiting for the slow bot to do it. After consciously failing to acknowledge this fact, if certain users (who make unreasonable ill-considered demands) don't expect to be promptly dismissed they're kidding themselves. I certainly would support alternative solutions such as Wknight94's idea or Elonka's idea being enacted, but until such a time, my current method of archiving has sufficient support (without which, I would not have continued). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

*:None of which excuses your inability to assume good faith or respond to users civilly instead of reverting their comments to your talk page with uncivil and rude tones. The fact of the matter is, several users have appeared here and on your talk page to ask you not to continue your behaviour. However you've done so, even as more and more users have shown up and asked you not to do it. The fact that you continually refer to any user who disagrees with you as a troll is a clear indication of why you need to step back and find something else to do. You've already preconceived a judgment about anyone who would dare oppose your will. Any reminder to adhere to those policies is also dismissed out of hand by you as carrying no weight, even though you've repeatedly called several users trolls, simply for asking you to stop what several others have asked you to stop as well. In addition you feel the need to make snarky and rude comments like "Most intelligent users...". The fact is, change your behaviour or the community is going to grow rather bored of it. Maybe you can go chat with betacommand and ask how his snarky responses to users he deemed too stupid for his time has worked out for him?--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the majority of the community is well aware of my ability to assume good faith, thanks. :) But you're most welcome to continue with your nitpicking, demands and whatever else that pops into your head. You're trying to change this into a game of wikipolitics and I'm not interested in being part of it. The FACTS are as follows
  • There have been users who have shown approval (and users who have shown disapproval) for my archiving for various reasons - I've addressed the reasonable concerns, while addressing those concerns that persuaded me to archive in the first place. I have disagreed with some of those users, and agreed at times on this very issue, or come to agree with those users, and I've certainly interacted with them civilly and assuming good faith. But those that have made unreasonable demands or have continued to be a nuisance or have been trolling on my talk page have been reverted for that reason. There are therefore 2 categories for those I disagree with (on this particular issue) - the category that you yourself in, and the one that you aren't in. I've lost any willingness to spend anymore time hammering this to be written in a way that you can understand, so I hope you get the message this time.
  • Perhaps 'intelligent' was a poor word choice - it probably should read as "most 'well-informed' users...." Maybe you felt a need to compare the situation to the deteriorating one of Betacommand due to your own sensitivity of this word choice - that I might've been referring to you or someone particular. The fact is, I didn't have anyone particular in mind - it was just a scenario out of the blue. If it did affect you or anyone, or was read that, then I'm sorry - that was genuinely not my intent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  And as for this comment most (if not all 9) of the admins who were responding to the thread, come to the same conclusion, I see two admins who clearly stated they want the bot to run its course, or did you conveniently ignore that? Both Lars and Xeno stated as such, and a quick check of their user page shows them as administrators.--Crossmr (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps you need to read more carefully in the future - I specifically stated I was talking about the thread below this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone truly feels an issue that's been archived is not truly "over", they can always start a new thread pointing to the archive, or even copy back the original text if necessary. There have been a few times when it looked like things were being closed a little too quickly, but more often than not you're waiting 12 or 24 hours just for something to finally disappear, which is not the optimal way to operate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see sufficient support for your continued aggressive archiving, just the opposite in fact. I think you should reduce the archiving you're doing and, as many have said above, let the bot do it. If there is indeed a problem with page size, then get a consensus for a solution. RxS (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Does that make me a troll? —Giggy 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, I have a bridge I could offer you. Some assembly required. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again: topic ban of user:Kossack4Truth from Obama pages for review

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: [4] and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned ([5], [6]).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page [to] refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And they've just warned via a template for it[7]--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 [8], my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). Endorse topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT RESOLVED. MCMVOCALIST is the same HIGHLY involved admin in all of these Obama related threads. He closed out the last one, above on this page, in which K4T and others were accused of shit. He dismissed all the pro-Obama editor problems as not problems, then again sanctions those editors seeking to bring balanced criticism to the page. NCMVocalist is absolutely unqualified to neutrally close this section, Especially since his actions were to wait just two hours after a lengthy objection and close it in the position he has previously advocated. Neutral, previously uninvolved editors and admins are needed to review this material. Obama's page is not neutral, and the editors seeking to include balanced criticism are unable to do anything because the pro-Obama editors seek to whitewash all criticism. This is one of the most viewed pages on the project right now, and we are not meeting our responsibilities by keeping fair criticism off the page. I request, formally, that NCMVocalist not touch this thread again. He's got a conflict of interest and, at this point, an apparent vendetta against numerous editors seeking to include balanced criticism. It's a shame that some of Obama's supporters are out to make the rest of us look like partisans, when his good qualities will shien through anyway. but POV pushing needs to cease there. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request is denied. Please refrain from smearing me with any part of the title, 'highly involved admin' (a meritless accusation) - you need to take a break and become familiar with (or refamiliarise yourself with) WP:UNINVOLVED, first and foremost.

The ban has been imposed with the overall consensus of the community, with full endorsement by 8 uninvolved administrators. Kossack4Truth is welcome to appeal the topic ban in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you are incorrect. Ncmvocalist is not an administrator. Ncmvocalist, please stop archiving threads. Thank you. Risker (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the pages remain a giant mud pit. Restricting Kossack4Truth does not validate the behavior of every other editor on the page. I would be happy to look at other editors' behavior, but not as an excuse to avoid doing something about this particular disruptive user. This line of argument boils down to: "Yes, Kossack4Truth is disruptive, but so are some other people!" The correct response is to restrict this disruptive editor and move on to ask for evidence, in a separate thread, of disruption by other editors. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, some editors (and apparently a sysop) make major allowances for the continued trolling in these threads and refuse to accept that this is a noticeboard - not a complaints dept. This thread was very clearly labelled in a way to be about the conduct of Kossack4Truth, and there was consensus to pass the topic ban. Yet here we still are, tapping our feet at the editors (and sysop) who refuse to put up (as MastCell quite rightly puts it) "evidence, in a separate thread, of disruption by other editors." I no longer wonder why this entire page remains a mess. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with MastCell. It is evident that there a number of disruptive editors in this topic not just one. However we are dealing with just one here in this thread - that does not mean we will ignore / condone bad behaviour by others. Please, if there is evidence of other parties actively engaging in disruption either open a thread here or follow normal RFC/U procedure so that uninvolved users and sysops can review it. The fact that other threads have been closed does not preclude a proper investigation into other users. With that in mind I would move to close this thread and this issue regarding K4T without prejudice to other threads about problematic behaviour by other editors--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how AN/I works. If a student gets into a fight, you don't want the principal punishign just one of the two, you want both punished. When one kid runs to the teacher crying 'he hit me', do you want the teacher to say, 'yeah? you've got detention' and consider the matter settled? No. You expect the teacher to get both sides of the story and act accordingly, usually with detentions for both students. IF we only handle K4T here, we risk never having an opportunity to handle the biases which K4T is discussing, because we keep shutting down those with other POVs. This sort of resolution would result in bully squads on pages, which is already happening on Obama, as I've noted before. A group all attacks anyone who wants any criticism till the new guy invokes IAR and adds it, then gets accused of an edit war, gets blocked for going against consensus, when the consensus is to cover up Obama's critics. The new editor is blocked, and the sick behavior of the pro-obama gang is reinforced, assuring that they'll more confidently run the same dance again. This dance against K4T comes just days after running the same dance on WorkerBee74. Our 'job' here is neutral articles, not pushing 'our guy' forward by wiping his page of problems. To ONLY deal with K4T here, and not investigate what's behind it, is to allow this abuse to continue and grow into systemic bias. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX said:

There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. .....It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're mistaken. Wikipedia is about consensus-based editing, not 'ignore all rules' editing. One's misconduct does not legitimize another's. Kossack4Truth has engaged in misconduct and measures have been imposed to prevent that misconduct that has the community concerned. ANI is not the place to deal with essentially content issues (for support adding criticism about Obama, or for opposing adding criticism about Obama) that should be dealt with through Article RFC or Mediation, or for forum-shopping. Although Risker (in my opinion) exercised poor judgement in reopening this thread, that's besides the point. If you have evidence of editorial misconduct by other parties in this dispute, why do you refuse to post it in a separate thread? The separate thread would not preclude the consideration of mitigating factors (if any) for the measure imposed here - I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So your attitude is 'Yes, others did bad stuff, but since Mastcell filed this about K4T, we cannot and will not look at others, even though they're clearly part of the problem'? That's hardly the way to get anything productive done. Further, if I have to go off and file a separate thread, I'll do so, even to the point of being K4T's voice in all that. That's right, I'll go so far as being banned for meatpuppetry, if that's what it takes to keep this thread, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, open until we get some real resolution. Ncmvocalist's attitude of willful myopic behavior persists only with the tacit approval of a pro-obama cabal who seem intent of one by one reipping down all opposition. I'm fucking disgusted by this attitude, and Ncmvocalist's not the only voice by a long shot. To look at ONLY K4T because Mastcell named ONLY K4T is asinine, and Ncmvocalist should lose his admin bits for this vendetta attitude. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Ncmvocalist is not an admin. –xeno (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm. Then he ought to quit closing all the threads related to Obama troubles as resolved and making declarative judgments and so on. Preempting discussions and so on certainly makes him appear as an admin. He needs to refrain from closing any more threads about Obama related topics and any involving Editors tied to such articles, like WB74, K4T, LotLE, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Any person with a sound mind will not leap to the ludicrous conclusion they'll be banned for meatpuppetry for opening a separate thread at the request of the community, unless they have chronic unfounded assumptions of bad faith. I therefore think you have personal issues you need to deal with first. Almost everyone who has responded here wants to resolve this dispute as effectively as possible, but your persistent shouting is certainly unhelpful. If you have evidence of individual editors disrupting the article there, or even affecting Kossack4Truth's misconduct that brought on this topic ban, we're openly welcoming you to put evidence in a new thread that deals with that editor - I'm certainly interested into looking into it, and so is the community. This was archived as it was about Kossack4Truth and there are moves to close this thread again. All I've seen from you here so far is chronic unfounded assumptions of bad faith against both myself, and the community, and no sign of actually looking into the dispute or having any intent on posting evidence in a separate thread (as opposed to shouting and demanding everyone else to follow your orders) - all it does is further justify why this will be closed soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of hot air there, and accusations, but little substance. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't try archiving right after posting that. There's plenty of evidence of the problems there, and you should know, you've jumped into every report on AN/I about that stuff, loudly shouting and hand-waving that there's nothing to see here, just evil anti-Obama people trying to PVP up the article. Go look at recent threads about Workerbee74, and LotLE. and other threads about Obama, including the subpages specifically about Obama pages. The declarations of a problem of a lack of criticism repeat extensively. and you're at a lot of those, saying there's nothing to see here. As I've said before:leave the closing of these thigns to admins, since you actually aren't one. ThuranX (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction. He used to be an administrator, in his former incarnation as User:Mercury. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction of correction: Mercury is now NonvocalScream, not User:Ncmvocalist. They are different. —Kurykh 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

I haven't researched the history so I cannot speak for motives or what caused what to happen. Anyone that denies that WP has a liberal bias doesn't understand WP's bad image on the internet. WP is not seen as an unbiased or reliable. We need to improve on this.

Mr. Obama's article does need re-write. There are too many flaws to start. Subtle bias is one as well as the choice of material covered. Unfortunately, this makes Obama look bad to the astute observer (but may fool the casual reader). This is a pity since Obama is a historical figure and the presumptive next President of the U.S.

I call for admins to try to bring civility to the article and to start a new principle for the article, i.e. neutral consideration of edits is very important in this case and that counting votes is flawed since Obama has more supporters than the other guy and every supporter (whether of Obama or the other guy) is sort of a meatpuppet of other supporters. So if 60% of editors say "McCain is Bush", that still wouldn't be WP material even though there would be a consensus. Presumptive (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support wholeheartedly Kossack4Truth is a clearly agenda pushing SPA and needs to be topic banned. It does not matter that other SPAs are there on the project. K4T has had 3 prior blocks for this exact same thing. He's run out of second chances. We can deal with the other editors too, but that does NOT mean that we should ignore K4T. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that over 3 days there's been near unanimous support for the Topic Ban, I believe that it should be implemented at this time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was implemented on 26 July 2008. This should've been closed at that point too, but Risker decided to re-open it based on what ThuranX said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wah wah wah, NCMVocalist. SwatJester, good, let's get on to that part, where we can examine multiple reports from Wikidemo about Lulu of the Lotus Eaters and SCJessey. Lets also examine all the other slow edit wars going on there, and issue topic bans liberally. Frankly, that page needs all the current warriors topic banned, so a whole new crew can get in there. Most notable is the constant opposition to any criticism of the candidate, citing BLP, no matter how much verifiable criticism on a topic is presented. The edit warring seems most intense between those who seek to add verifiable criticism and those who seek to strip the article of all criticism. What we have here is a major problem for wikipedia's credibility. How long till some newscaster on a slow news day decides to 'report' on how wikipedia covers the candidates? let's deal with this now, in this thread, and not play games about waiting for reports. If we do, I can predict the outcome: Four 'anti-criticism' editors will be seen to have agitated one 'pro-criticism' editor till they can report him. NCMVocalist will declare him guilty, then hover till a block is imposed, and immediately close the thread. I"ll ask about the behavior of the other four. And this will repeated for months and months. Two editors in favor of criticism are already banned from the page. How many more will be banned before we realize we have to deal with this better? Or will we just keep banning until the election, because so many wikipedians lack the ethics and moral fiber to separate their love of a candidate and their responsibilities as editors? Right now, I see a coordinated protection of Obama's page because a lot of people want to see the guy get elected. I see a lot of editors deliberately deciding that it's so important for him to win that their own convictions can be set aside, and so they game the rules, shouting BLP to preclude any criticism. Let's sort all this out now. ThuranX (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you kindly cut it out, and not assume bad faith or drag me into this? This discussion is an administrator's ask for other eyes on a topic ban instituted on a disruptive editor. The ban was upheld, and that's that. Yet you're chastising me for my contributions elsewhere on this board. As one of the most frequent, vociferous, and goal-oriented ones on this board of late (you are directly advocating for topic bans, upholding or overturning administrative decisions, etc.), you should know that bringing legitimate behavioral concerns and requests for administrative help here, rather than fighting it out on the article page or talk page is what we're supposed to do. Positioning the Obama pages as a pro-Obama / anti-Obama battleground rather than an attempt to write the best encyclopedia article possible and avoid disruption to the article only takes things in a more contentious direction. Wikidemo (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of threads about the Obama pages lately, it's clear that it is a battleground, and that a wider solution is needed. Advocating for proactive attention before we run through the game of attrition is hardly a bad thing. Otherwise, we wind up with a farcical Obama page. Nothing gets done on that page, it takes an AN/I thread to see change, mostly because that results in someone getting banned or blocked, allowing the other side to run roughshod over whatever consensus or objections were raised. I'm simply trying to get the larger problem solved. But since everyone here would rather whitewash and cover up on that page, I'll just wait for the next AN/I and point out the gaming again and again each time it comes up. ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree that there are serious issues with the editing on Obama pages which are not limited to Kossack4Truth. If I could make a suggestion: instead of waiting for the next thread, collect a handful of diffs and make a case about the editor, editors, or editing behaviors which you feel are contributing most to the problem. I am honestly interested in improving the editing environment surrounding this high-profile featured article - otherwise I wouldn't bother. As a second suggestion, I believe there's consensus for the topic ban at this point, and I think this thread is taking an unproductive turn toward back-and-forth personalized argumentation. Let's all step back from that aspect. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus for a topic ban in relation to Kossack4Truth, which he was notified of on 26 July 2008. Any actions on behalf of other disruptive editors at any Obama-related page should be dealt with in a new thread. There is nothing more that can be said in this particular thread that hasn't been rehashed here or at the prior threads regarding Kossack4Truth, and there is little to no hope that such a topic ban can be reversed based upon the comments given above. With that, I am suggesting that if you have an issue with another editor on Obama-related pages, bring it up in a separate thread. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that detaching EACH editor's behavior weakens each case, leaving a handful of 'nothing to see heres' which only come together if seen in context and as a whole, but I get the point. Shut up and love Obama. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The counterargument, of course, is that if each editor's defense is "but look what HE did!", then it quickly becomes impossible to sort anything out. Regardless of whether any other editor was misbehaving, Kossack4Truth's behavior was unacceptable, and hence a sanction warranted. Yes, long-term patterns of subtle abuse are difficult to present succinctly. But I would suggest that this establishes a precedent for dealing with disruption. That precedent can usefully be applied to other editors. I don't see how a topic ban for Kossack4Truth "weakens" the case against any other disruptive editor - in fact, I think a presentation that focuses on a specific disruptive user with a specific proposal on how to deal with them is the only way to proceed. Trying to sort out dozens of editors and problems all at once is a recipe for disaster. We need to deal with this in bite-sized chunks - if you'd like to present one, I'd honestly be quite receptive. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't it obvious, Mr. MastCell? The last guy who tried that was instantly topic-banned, and his thread was instantly archived by Ncmvocalist (who is not an administrator). It takes a lot of time to gather up all the diffs you're requesting, and the reward appears to be impalement with another one of your lightning bolts. You have very, very effectively given the Wikipedia Seal of Approval to whatever LotLE, Scjessey and Wikidemo want to do with Barack Obama, and whatever they want to say to or about anyone who gets in their way. Nobody wants to step out in front of your lightning bolts after they see what happened to the last guy who tried. Nice work. Curious bystander (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you might be interested to learn that they're already calling me a sockpuppet. Why am I not surprised? Curious bystander (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said, CB. The ground is still smoldering where K4T used to be standing, and MastCell wants somebody to stand in the same spot and do the same thing? I'll get right on that ... WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Inevitably, with the slow news days of late summer upon us, some journalist working a political beat is going to do a story about how Wikipedia refuses to allow any criticism or controversy to be added to the biography about Barack Obama (while bashing George W. Bush and Tony Blair like a pair of drums), and blocks anyone who tries. It will be described as positive proof of the left-wing bias here. Such a story might be easy to dismiss if Newsmax does it, but what about Salon or The Washington Post? Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming.[9][10] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[11] Request outside opinions. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• [12] and [13] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, [14], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [15].
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [16].
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [17], [18], [19], [20] as well as on his personal blog, see [21] and [22].

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question: If I beat the shit out of him for his comments about us 'pedians than yes, I should not edit his article. Beam 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not weighing in one way or the other. I am only offering up evidence for consideration by others who can be more objective than myself. If this evidence amounts to nothing then simply ignore it.

On the narrow issue of this having an effect on Wikipedia's ability to offer objective criticism, if the criticism in question is only supportable by one individual (or a small handful) I would question whether that criticism belongs in the encyclopedia in the first place. At that point it begins to look very much like someone (or a small group) using the encyclopedia as a forum (basically Solomon's point) rather than it being truly objective criticism. The encyclopedia has many voices and we should rely on them all, not just a few. I very much doubt that those supporting the consensus view are so limited in number as to worry that the elimination of a single voice on a couple of pages is going to cripple their ability to offer criticism. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority as we keep hearing. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is simply a guideline for editors who have just arrived at wikipedia, who are not yet familiar with the wiki rules who may have a conflict of interest to stick to, in order to make sure they don't violate the usual wiki rules like NPOV when editing wikipedia. If WMC is violating NPOV or does something else which is objectionable, then that should be discussed. WMC is, of course, a very experienced wiki editor, and WP:COI doesn't apply to him. Arguably, WP:COI is redundant and should be deleted. Most editors edit anonymously anyway... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis is correct that WP:COI does not apply, or, rather, that it does not apply directly. However, editors with very strong feelings about a topic are generally advised to exercise caution with regard to it. The situation which is raised by this report is a serious one, and there is an appearance, rather easily seen, of a cabal supporting Connolley. I am not claiming that there is a literal cabal, but it became clear to me when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight that there was a troubling pattern of what appeared to be tag-team reverts, uncivil edit summaries from the beginning, all the way up to improper blocking by an involved administrator. Attempts to bring this to the attention of involved administrators, on my part, were met with incivility and what I can only describe as arrogant dismissal. I have avoided, so far, forcing any issue, hoping that these editors will recognize the damage that is done to Wikipedia when a group of editors, and especially if it includes administrators, become attached to some POV as being NPOV, with any new editor with a contrary POV being, then, a "POV-pusher." NPOV, actually, is not in opposition to any POV, but transcends them; another way of putting it is that it includes them, though, because of WP:UNDUE, it isn't quite that simple. In any case, I'd highly recommend Connolley avoid editing, in way likely to appear controversial, articles on his critics! While it is not literally a COI, as described in WP:COI, it is, in substance, and it could come back to haunt him. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing to look at is conduct. If he does anything, then deal with it, but until then, let it ride. WMC is generally a pretty cool guy, or at least he has been in my interactions with him. Jtrainor (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a pattern here of administrative abuse and a lack of consensus in Williams edits.

Based on past edit history, it will not be long before William starts blocking Lawerence as he has before, dozens and dozens of times.

What I can't figure out, is that other administrators get their admin friends block editors they are in edit wars with. I guess some admins can act with total, open impunity on wikipedia.

Lets be honest here, William has enough supporters who will back him up no matter what he does. Those supporters will tell say "let it ride", as above, and this dispute will be quickly forgotten, just like the dozens of others.

PS, please no admin threats on my talk page, lets keep the discussion here. Inclusionist (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that articles on scientific topics are different in nature than articles on politics and require different rules. We have had bad experiences with uninvolved Admins protecting the Global Warming page until editing disputes were resolved.

By consensus we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources. If a few new editors come along arguing that this consensus violates wiki policies and start edit wars, the last thing you want to have is a neutral Admin who has no background in science, who sees this as a content dispute. It is far better to have Admins who are experts in the field like WMC and Raul to use their Admin tools to protect the integrity of the global warming articles.

It may be that this is a bad idea for politics articles, because there you usually have equally valid POVs. But in case of scientific articles the only valid POVs are what you can read in the peer reviewed scientific papers.

On the global warming page itself we don't have problems anymore, because everyone (including the few sceptics) has accepted the consensus and sticks to it. But there are related articles like the one about the book by Solomon, in which ridiculous claims are made. All that WMC has done is to make a few edits directly related to the topic. E.g. he wrote that some of the people Solomon calls scientists are not scientists. This is something that is verifiable. There is absolutely no conflict of interest here.

Conflict of interest can be potential problem. but not in this case. You can e.g. imagine that WMC and Solomon were rival scientist (working on some other topic than global warming on which there is no consensus), supporting different theories. Then you could imagine WMC writing negative things about a book written by Solomon in the wiki article about that topic, citing his own papers. Count Iblis (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a very serious problem in Count Iblis's comment, an approach and attitude that, in fact, is causing quite a bit of difficulty with the global warming related articles.

articles on scientific topics are different in nature than articles on politics and require different rules. We have had bad experiences with uninvolved Admins protecting the Global Warming page until editing disputes were resolved.

We do not have different standards for sources on "scientific topics." Topics, in fact, cannot be neatly divided into scientific an "other." Global warming is at the same time a scientific issue and a social issue. "We have had bad experiences." Who has had bad experiences? I can tell you, someone with a POV different from that of the "involved administrators" may well have had a bad experience running onto ownership of the articles by administrators, and Wikipedia process requires that article protection, blocking, and other use of admin tools be by uninvolved administrators. Further, there is no exception to the rules against edit warring for "science articles." What's the "bad experience?" Let me guess: the article was protected in the "wrong version." But that's easy to fix: just find consensus in Talk. The foundation assumption of this comment is that there is some consensus that is being violated by interlopers. Show it, and it should be easy to get an uninvolved administrator to change the article. What I've seen, though, is an article being protected and then an involved administrator has changed it to the preferred version, on his own initiative. This is no different from an expert in any field using tools. Should experts on politics use their tools in service of what they know to be true? Are, indeed, administrators charged with determining "truth," or what the "scientific consensus" is (which is a different creature than Wikipedia "editorial consensus," though certainly there is interplay.

By consensus we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources.

Again, what consensus? It should be realized that "global warming" has been construed as covering a wide range of articles, including biographies of various individuals, articles on the public controversy, etc. Sources for what? Biographical information? Peer-reviewed sources, generally, are superior to other sources in quality, but there are exceptions, and no universal rule can be stated. Ultimately, Wikipedia process makes decisions through editorial consensus, and any group of editors defining themselves as the experts and thus as better able to judge than others is inimical to this. What has happened is that a group of administrators have treated some editors, immediately upon arrival, as "POV pushers," with uncivil edit summaries, and then, even though involved in edit warring with these editors, have used their tools. Admin tools must be reserved for usage by uninvolved administrators, and if some exception is to be made to this, it had better get past ArbComm. In every other field, experts in the field are cautioned against COI, even if it isn't formal, because individual expertise is no substitute for reliable sourcing, and expert editors, while respect is certainly due, do not have any superior rights. Why would "science" be an exception?

If a few new editors come along arguing that this consensus violates wiki policies and start edit wars, the last thing you want to have is a neutral Admin who has no background in science, who sees this as a content dispute.

But it is a content dispute. If it were truly a consensus, there would be no difficulty at all maintaining it, problems would be rare. First of all, is there such a consensus? How was it obtained and where is it documented? To what articles, specifically, does it apply? Who or what process makes that judgment? I'm afraid that what this looks like to me is a group of editors deciding that their opinion is "consensus" because, they believe, it is supported by "peer-reviewed" articles. But peer-reviewed articles don't have any opinion on Wikipedia editorial policy; to think that they generate some kind of automatic approval for one POV and disapproval for another is synthesis. Nobody should start edit wars; but what happens is that a new editor comes in and makes an edit which appears to him to satisfy policy. And, let's assume that Count Iblis is correct: it would satisfy "ordinary" guidelines, but this is a science article, it has -- he claims -- different rules. What really happens is that the edit is immediately reverted, and the new editor is presented with a brick wall. The initial edit summary is often uncivil, a not very subtle message of "Go away, your kind is not welcome here." And some new editors go away at this point, convinced that Wikipedia is dominated by some particular POV. Others will revert, and will be promptly reverted again. A standard group of editors participates in these reverts, and I haven't seen much attempt to negotiate consensus with the new editors. Edit warring happens on both sides. Edit warring is not how articles should be maintained. And none of this assumes that the new editor was "right" and the "consensus" was "wrong."

It is far better to have Admins who are experts in the field like WMC and Raul to use their Admin tools to protect the integrity of the global warming articles.

Count Iblis, are you aware that if what you are asserting is what has been happening, these administrators have been violating policy and, if they don't recognize this and change their ways, they would almost certainly be desysopped?

On the global warming page itself we don't have problems anymore, because everyone (including the few sceptics) has accepted the consensus and sticks to it.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they gave up. If it works, it works. Do the skeptics have an opinion that the global warming page reflects consensus? Or could it be that this article has simply come to reflect consensus, that skepticism is treated fairly there?

But there are related articles like the one about the book by Solomon, in which ridiculous claims are made. All that WMC has done is to make a few edits directly related to the topic. E.g. he wrote that some of the people Solomon calls scientists are not scientists. This is something that is verifiable. There is absolutely no conflict of interest here.

Is there "peer-reviewed source" for WMC's edit? What, indeed, is a "scientist?" There are various definitions. WMC may not have a formal COI, but he pretty clearly has a POV. Further, Count Iblis seems to have confused COI with being right. I.e., a COI editor may make a correct edit, verifiable, and it would still be a COI violation if it is controversial. Does WMC have a COI with respect to global warming articles? Well, if he has a professional reputation to defend, he might. That is, his profession creates a COI. I'm not prepared to assert that this means he should not edit those articles, but that the COI issue isn't simply stupid. More to the point, an expert administrator, of any kind, should probably refrain from using the tools based on personal expertise in a field, i.e., content decisions. And this seems to be precisely what Count Iblis is asserting should happen. He knows the field, the argument would go, so he would be better able to recognize what is POV and what is NPOV. This is, in fact, a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole concept of NPOV, and of editorial and administrative policy. I'm an expert in certain fields, and, as a result, where I once might have been neutral, I now have some strong opinions. Some of these opinions are based on extensive personal experience and familiarity with the literature. It does, in fact, enable me to recognize propaganda from advocates in a field, to distinguish that from what is widely accepted among the knowledgeable. But I would not dare to use admin tools, if I had them, to enforce this in articles. I'm involved in the field. I must do what any editor does, find reliable sources -- I'll state my opinions and experience in Talk, but that's not a source, merely background -- and find consensus with other editors who may have very different POVs from mine. Even if I think -- and maybe even correctly know -- that I have ten times as much experience and knowledge as they do.

I want to thank Count Iblis for expressing this position. It makes it very clear what has been going on. --70.17.152.24 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of this comment is, of course, totally off topic and a distraction. You and WMC want to assert that certain people are not scientists yet you offer no WP:RS to WP:V that claim despite your assertion here that this is WP:V. If you have the sources to verify your claims then use them, otherwise the assertion is WP:OR. And if you wish to consider The Deniers to be a "science article" because it is related to global warming science then your sources have to be in peer reviewed journals by your own standards as articulated in your comment above.

We have already noted in the conversation on this topic that if WMC, as a notable person, wishes to level this particular assertion at the people he claims are not scientists, then let him do so and go through the process of having that published. Nothing is stopping him from doing so. And, if he successfully completes that process we will then have the WP:RS source required to WP:V the claim here in wikipedia which we can duly record as his opinion. Absent that, it remains unpublished WP:OR which, as a wikipedian, he is not allowed to introduce into the article. For some reason this basic point seems to escape those trying to assert the claim.

Regardless, this issue is not germane to whether or not WMC has a WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Prisongangleader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-evident sockpuppet, likely user:Fredrick day. This was based on the contribution history:

1. 10:57, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (creating article)
2. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (fixed cat)
3. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (+ tags)
4. 10:59, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ ({{WikiProject Education|class= |importance=}}) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
5. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
6. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
7. 13:43, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader/monobook.js‎ (importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
8. 13:44, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) Thor Halland‎ ({{subst:afd}}
9. 13:46, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor Halland‎ (fails wp:bio and about 100 other policies...)

Very obviously not a new user, then, and pitching straight in to AfDs with a brand-new account looks to me to be disruptive. Feel free to unblock if you think the main account has a legitimate reason for this sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment. this user seemed to require some help with malformed AfD requests. Unless this was a scheme designed to make us think this account was not a sock, I can't imagine Allemantando/KoC/fred day needing help putting an AfD together. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked based on username alone. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Without a warning and a chance to change it? Protonk (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• as an update, he's likely editing under Special:Contributions/87.114.2.150. wording is similar. WHOIS resolves to england but not the same ISP or region as fred day. Either way it is enough to submit an SSP. Guess I'll learn how to do that now. :) Protonk (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This was an error. 87.112-87.115 is the most common identified IP for Fredrick day, it's obviously very convenient for him. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and accounts that he has used. --Abd (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It might be worth just updating/adding a new request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be. The RFCU is here. I personally don't see sufficient evidence to open a RFCU on this user in connection to fred day, but that's me. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A little background:

It is important to note that User:Protonk is not exactly a uninvovled editor.

User:Protonk got involved with Prisongangleader when user Prisongangleader started to attack my changes/merges too Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron‎, which User:Protonk didn't support himself.

User:Protonk has been arguing against PGL's block since then.

Myself and other users have found several other socks, of the same editor:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prisongangleader

Same:

1. use of the word "bent",
2. same knowledge of wikipedia policy,
3. same edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron‎.

Keep in mind that User:87.114.2.150 two contributions:

(00:50, 27 July 2008) (00:47, 27 July 2008)

...were after User:Prisongangleader was indefinitely banned on (18:59, 26 July 2008),[23] so even if User:Prisongangleader is not User:Frederick day, User:87.114.2.150/User:Prisongangleader was still violating his indefinete block.

Inclusionist (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I don't appreciate the insinuations you make here in the slightest. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry is there anything factual incorrect here? I removed the mistake about you being an admin. Again, please respond here, not on my talk page Inclusionist (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are errors here. Since you've asked me to continue this on AN/I, I will do so, but I'm not happy about it. First, your continual vague insinuations about me and PGL are totally unwanted. You began them here, here resulted in a request (here) for you to stop these insinuations. Following this request you REPEATED these insinuations above (and elaborated upon them) here. When I asked you to retract these insinuations again you responded only by asking if there were factual inaccuracies. So I'll reply. first, it is an assumption of bad faith to treat my relationship with PGL as a collaborative one. Second, it is factually inaccurate to act as though I did not support the idea of a merger in ARS/WICO/AIW more generally. I assumed from the start (even helping to archive talk pages) that you had consensus to merge these pages and were acting in good faith. I even spent considerable effort messaging Reallyhick and Benjiboi to plead with them to treat you as a good faith editor, not a vandal. I commented in assent with PGL when he noted that merging member lists between projects might be unwise, especially member merges between AIW and ARS (not all ARS/WICU members are inclusionists). I further cautioned you against calling PGL a vandal and a stalker when he had vandalised nothing. Those are the facts. The insinuation on a very public page such as AN/I that I am in league with a blocked user is totally unacceptable. I'm asking for the last time. Please retract it. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, is it not a fact that:

1. you have advised PGL several times how to handle his indefinete boot,
2. that you have argued in PGL's support in the checkuser,
3. that you asked the admin who booted him to retract the boot,
4. that you have been arguing for him here?
5. That I removed/retracted all of the comments against PGL you found offensive.
6. that you and PGL both were opposed to the merger.
7. that you are not an uninvolved editor in this dispute.

If will rewrite this section. But it goes both ways Protonk, if you want me to do what you ask, I ask for the same in return:

1. You gave me a warning for cutting and pasting a warning template which another editor put on my talk page and putting this warning template on his page, but refused to give the same editor a warning who originally gave me this warning template.
2. Don't post on my talk page again. I asked you nicely not to, and you did anyway.

I personally feel that your enforcement of wikipedia rules has been incredibly one sided. Inclusionist (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see how it is going to be. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, kids, don't fight. This is AN/I, intended to be a place to seek assistance that requires admin tools, not to establish that you or the other person is disagreeable. To some extent, also, it's a place to explain what's going on. User:Prisongangleader may or may not have been properly blocked based on the information available at the time, but is certainly the blocked Fredrick day. Here is why I believe that. First of all, the user registered a day after I commented in AN/I, about Fredrick day, about prison gangs, making the analogy between inclusionists and deletionists.[24] It would be easy to misunderstand this, it isn't a negative, critical analogy. The point was actually how communities, under relatively lawless conditions, are forced to police themselves, because if they leave it to a rival "tribe" to police misconduct of their members, it leads to gang or tribal warfare. If there is a deletionist who is abusing the Wikipedia community, it's ideal if a deletionist deals with the problem. Likewise with inclusionists. I'm not suggesting that this be required, by any means, only noting that it is less disruptive when warnings and sanctions come from a relatively sympathetic editor or administrator. We can assume that Fredrick day read this. Next day, the account appears, Prisongangleader. This is highly likely Fredrick day, just from this, though it could certainly be an imitator or meat puppet. Then, when PGL is blocked, an edit appears from the 87.112-87.115 range, which is clearly a very available range for Fd, same page as Fd has been editing. These coincidences are beyond what can be reasonably expected from chance. This was Fredrick day, also known as User:Allemandtando. Protonk filed the SSP report, for which I commend him. And if he defends Fd from members of the "other gang," that's expected. Cut him some slack, okay? --Abd (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the comments about Protonk are very unfair, it's not that he's a supporter of mine - it's that he feels that (our) due process should be followed and that's why he stepped in for prisongangleader. Guy's block on the prisongangleader is good in that it is a sock of mine (good thing and all because it's actually rather premature as a block). I think Protonk was rather mislead in this case by the fact that I did a misformed AFD - this is because for whatever reason I cannot get the tools to work with this account and had to do it manually. I would hate to see any heat gone down on Protonk for my actions - he has never on-site or via any other communication mechanism encouraged me to sock and indeed has supported blocks of my socks as per our policies. --Frederick day (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice, Fred. Seriously. What goes around comes around. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frederick day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has acknowledged being the blocked Fredrick day.[25]. Fd hasn't been formally banned, to my knowledge, but attempts to suggest his unblock have been snowed out. Under the new account, he's been very, very active. I'm making no claim here that this activity has been disruptive, though it is very, very assertive; it would be a lot of work to review it in detail. (Some of it that I've looked at is definitely helpful.) I'm making this report simply because I noticed it and the admission, and I decided to not simply sit on it. --Abd (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

Resolved

 – User has been blocked for 1 week. –xeno (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Myself and A Man in Black have been harassed by him for a while, due to conflicts at various talk pages. He also thinks we are both the same person (just because we edit the same places, and disagree with him). I've brought this up to an admin, here: User_talk:Xenocidic#User:SLJCOAAATR_1_causing_problems_still, which caused the admin to leave a note. The note didn't stop the user. See User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#Comment for more information. His user page here: User:SLJCOAAATR_1#Wiki_Friends.2FAllies_in_Editing, right by my name on his user page: "So totally AMIB's alt!". Also see: [26] for more proof Skeletal just seemingly ignored what the admin said. Other links (which were posted on the admin's talk page, before the admin left a note on his talk page), include: [27] and [28]. So besides the accustations, poor attitude, insults and bad faith, he talks about hacking people. I've tried talking to him a few times in the past, but he wont listen. I'm simply fed up with his behavior and his poor attitude. I've tried to ignore it, but he responds to just about every post I do with a rude comment or an accustation. When he's not doing that, he's posting on his friends talk pages with the same type of thing. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun stuff. I'm giving him a little warning and pointing him at WP:COOL. That should help, but a block isn't in order quite yet, I don't think (but I find I'm a bit soft with the blocking...). I might watchlist the page as well, but I think I'd need to expand how many changes it shows... Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm SLJ's friend, and the only reason why he's popping his lid is because AMIB's getting away with murder. If you look through the WT:WikiProject Video games archives on the talk page, you'll see him swearing his head off, also on the talk page of List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), he swore to me when I was pointing out evidence that he didn't know that much about a group of articles and shouldn't have made major edits on something he doesn't know that much about. If anyone deserves blocking it's him. I'm not saying his edits were in "bad-faith", I'm saying he didn't know enough about the subject at hand. And why wasn't SLJ informed about this? If a user has a chance of getting blocked he has the right to try and explain himself/herself and prove himself/herself innocent. As for the case of suspected sock-puppetry, why can't he suspect that someone's a sock-puppet? Or are you saying it's bad to try and prove someone's going against Wikipedia policy?Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Xeno for directing me here!

Rob, once again, before trying to get rid of me (Which you keep denying) take a look at the full story. All you've done here, is try to build a puzzle with 10 out of 100 pieces, read a newspaper article that has white-out spilled over 5 out of 7 paragraphs, etc., etc., etc. And again, you've proven my point further. AMIB & Co. are allowed to editwar, swear/curse, be uncivil to users, etc. BUT, the second me, or anyone oppossing AMIB & Co. does, it's the end of the world. Some of you have even gone as far as pleading for help. As for my suspection of you being a sockpuppet of AMIB, sure, I don't have any proof that you are, but, I don't have proof that you aren't either. And the fact that you two never post anywhere near the same time period makes me all the more suspicious. Good day Rob, and read the full headline in the paper today. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You just need to calm down, instead of being so angry all the time just because we disagree with you and your friends. Yes, AMIB has sworn and done some edit warring. However, I haven't, so don't group me in with him (just because we both don't agree with you). Also, what is all this AMIB and co. about? I don't see anyone regularly disagreeing with you, except for myself and AMIB. Provide some evidence, otherwise it looks like you are overreacting on the matter. All I've done is disagree with you, and you got upset and had to drag it this far. I've dealt with your false accustations, uncivility, bad faith attitude long enough. As for the sockpuppet nonsense: there is a check user feature on Wikipedia. Ask someone to do it on me and him, I have nothing to hide. Once it's done, then you can stop that nonsense. Anyway, here is some new links that show his continued poor attitude: [29], [30] and [31]. The first is an accustation I'm lying, the second is him yelling at people and the third is another false accustation. Also note: Lifebaka posted a note on his talk page, which he obviously ignored. He hasn't changed his behavior, dispite the fact many people have told him to calm down, keep his cool and so on. Lastly, making a section here isn't about blocking. It's about getting help with a user and problem. So stop assuming I'm out to get you blocked, because that's far from the truth. I just want you to calm down, instead of harassing myself and AMIB, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you now (or in the future). All these garbage accustations and comments towards me need to stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [32], more nonsense. I have never once said I wanted him blocked, he is just assuming. I'm very sick of this. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB & Co. is simply what I call the group of people that are for the merging, as AMIB seems to be the leader. Sheesh. As for over-reacting? Lololololololololololololololol...Can't...stop...laughing!!! AHAHAHAHA!!! Rob, the only over-reacting here, is you. lol. Like I keep telling you, don't build the puzzle with only 1 tenth of the pieces. Before you suddenly came into action, AMIB was harrasing all of us, and using VERY foul laguage with us all, and whenever someone told him to relax, he only got more violent. When you came into play, he started playing the "Innocent little boy" act. If you don't believe me, I'll dig up some proof. So, seriously, Rob, relax, and find the missing pieces of the puzzle. K? Thx. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and, Rob, you should've told me about this, instead of letting an admin tell me. It's "uncivil" as you would say. :P Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the hacking, that has nothing to do with this. See Triple F's talk page, for more information on that. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A neutral hand to guide SLJetc. away from treating WP as a battleground might be nice. I am obviously not the right one for that job, for numerous reasons that should be apparent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More links of his rude behavior: [33] and [34]. Then there is this: [35], instead of responding to my comment, he just blanks most of his talk page. Then there is this: [36], more uncivil behavior. I think someone needs to mentor him, and let him know how policies work here. This isn't the place to just attack whoever you want. Stop spouting on about puzzle pieces. Whatever happened in the past, doesn't give you the right to be rude to me. I've disagreed with you, and agreed with a person you hate: that does NOT justify your attitude towards me. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found it more than obvious that you're trying to get rid of me. Stop denying it. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over it. I want you to settle down and leave me the hell alone. This has nothing to do with getting you blocked. Either stop being paranoid about it, or LEAVE ME ALONE already. I'm not going to stop denying something I'm not even doing. I have every right to disagree with you about how articles are edited, you just wont accept it in a mature manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If he needs a mentor on how to keep his cool, I'd be happy to do that. But I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia policies, just good mannered. All he needs to do is before typing, is just take a little think about what he's putting in and if it will get him in trouble or not. You are overreacting about Rob SLJ, and AMIB is no gang leader. Randomran supports the merge and he seems a pretty good guy. So what if these articles are merged? There's always the Sonic News Network. You could even copy all the info from Wikipedia and stick it there, so you've saved the articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he is resorting to abusive edit summaries: [37]. I would've put a template on his page, but I know it wouldn't have helped. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he labels any user who does not completely agree with him as an "enemy" is a definite sign of immaturity on his part. Its friggin' Wikipedia, not World War III. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at his recent edits (the user page ones as a big example). He has gone over the edge now. I placed a no personal attacks final warning on his talk (which he responded poorly to). The next step will be reporting to Administrator intervention against vandalism. His attitude is out of hand, and there's been more than enough attempts to help him out. He just shrugs them off, and continues to attack people. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, I've only labed TWO people as my enemy. AMIB for all of his "Oh, it's fancruft" bullcrap, and Rob, with his constant over-reacting, and whining like a little kid. I take it Rob. I just can't! PLEASE, block me, so I don't have to deal with either of you anymore! PLEASE! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Acting rude to people is unacceptable, and shouldn't be happening. Your user space isn't a place to post attacks towards people. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like I'm not begging to be blocked... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [38]. When is something going to be done? RobJ1981 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now. I've blocked him for a week. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point! Labeling anyone an "enemy" just because they rejected your in-universe fictional (read non-existing) character biography of a minor Sonic character (or whatever it is that you edit) is completely silly. I know you're only 14, but still. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quit it with the ageist attitude Jonny. That's called discrimination in my book.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd still appreciate it if someone uninvolved and experienced with Wikipedia (although I appreciate the offer, FFF) could take this user under their wing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried, but maybe not hard enough. –xeno (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user Rjecina

• User:Rjecina seems to be engaged in problematic behaviour for quite a while - persistant habit of personal attacks against other editors, edit warring, deletion of referenced material, removal of warning tags related to this, repeated personal attacks and disqualifications of other editors in edit summaries, refusal to talk to other editors etc. Could someone please try to cool him down and make him follow the basic wikipedia rules. Joka (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence, please. Also note that this user has few, if any, edits, and that User:Rjecina has a recent history of being stalked by brand-new accounts. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina has in particular made offensive remarks against me (calling me "nationalistic editor", "nationalistic SPA account" etc. He repeatedly removed my warnings (related to these remarks, and also related to removal of valid referes) [39], [40]. He repeatedly removes valid references, in particular, article Srbosjek that has been nominated for deletion (he has asked User:DIREKTOR to nominate the article as evident from their talk page, but this user has honourably admited that returned references are valid and prove the item existed; similar thing happens in article Miroslav Filipović‎ and Petar Brzica - for instance, he puts misleading information in edit summaries, saying that only english language references are valid [41], and keeps removing valid references despite being warned of the wikipedia policies (and srbosjek article has been kept since references provided have been deemed credible by wikipedia comunity; similarly, DIREKTOR has refused to follow him in other articles in which he is edit warring despite the references provided). He seems to be thinking every one user who is restoring the references is one user who he is obsessed with; that he is engaged in edit war with some users (like User:J. A. Comment who he has slandered claiming he is a banned user), some of whom might also be problematic, is certainly no excuse for this incivil behavior. I have not been editing wikipedia since last year when I put references to Srbosjek, and recent deletion proposal has drawn my attention to this again - I am certainly not a new user, as I have edited wikipedia occasionaly since 2003 (I have added some photos that are now deleted and described them, and was more active in the past as evident from my talk page); in any case, no editor should be exposed to personal attacks, slander, accusations, and referenced material should not be removed like that. Joka (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My two red cents - from [42] you can see this

Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here [43],[44] which reads:

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([45]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see from the archive where Rjecina was harrasing others - baselessly claiming that the others are someone's sock-puppets:

• Procrustes_the_clown: [46], Marechiel, Votec: [47], Mike Babic: [48]

Removal of references and complete contributions without any explanation, or on baseless accusiations that these contributions were made by banned users:

• Srbosjek: [49], Ljubo Milos: [50], Miroslav Filipovic: [51], Petar Brzica: [52]

--66.217.131.99 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: two IPs added the previous comment: this is the first IP's only edit on Wikipedia, the second IP deleting the first one's signature has one more edit from 2006.

Also note: in the case of Mike Babic see the diff:

Probably unnecessary, case is obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

which is also confirmed by another admin.

So please check the diffs above. Squash Racket (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is the same anon user, who is editing from dynamic IP; I have noticed that user in the 66.xxxxx range is one of the people who Rjecina is warring with so my guess is that it is that person; certainly, there are a few users that Rjecina has been harassing for a while; I only got involved in this after noting that srbosjek is up for deletion again, and got attacked by Rjecina - his issues with other editors should not be excuse for attacking me or anyone indeed, and comments from people who he was edit warring with for quite a while before are indeed helpful here; my strongest objection is to removal of warnings and personal attack-type edit sumaries, that I have experienced, but certainly Rjecina issues go much deeper. Disruptive behaviour like that seems to go against anyone who disagrees with his removals of sourced material. Joka (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me see.... User Joka has not edit Wikipedia 11 months (his edits in Template:The Holocaust are reverted with RFC). After all that time he is going to wikipedia to start deletion discussion and shortly after that to harass me and other users from Croatia (user DIREKTOR [53] and Jesuislafete [54]). It is funny that this nationalistic SPA account is deleting article where every statement is confirmed by source [55] and then write vandal warning on other users talk pages because of sources deletion [56] (can this be called NPOV ?)!!!!

My question about deletion discussion is how this user has discovered discussion ?? I am ulmost 100 % sure that he is puppet but we need evidence...

Only reason why I have not asked banning of this user like other harass accounts which are attacking my edits from 9 July ( PravdaRuss and his puppets) is that user Joka is old nationalistic SPA account. Now this mistake can be changed.... Only edits of this account in all 2008 are revert of my edits and warning on my talk page and talk pages of users which support me against his attacks--Rjecina (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I addition to above counted harassments I would like to add - Paulcicero and Roramaster - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Roramaster. This person Rjecina never apologize to any of them. As to the series of articles (Srbosjek, Magnum Crimen, Petar Brzica, Miroslav Filipovic, Ljubo Milos) - Rjecina never committed any piece of human knowledge to these articles nor improved their quality otherwise. Rjecina kept removing any contribution of any user - 'supporting' his actions by some frivolous excuses for over more than three months - at the same time attacking contributors as bad persons. If he ever tried to behave this way anywhere else - say if it were Encyclopaedia Brittannica - he would be removed, if not after such first attempt - then after the second one, for sure - from the editorial board for good. I wonder how it is possible that no one from the Wikipedia administration did not sanction this unethical and irrational behavior? In addition to the above - I'm just curious - is this Squash Racket twin brother of Rjecina i.e. his sock-puppet? How come that similar nonsense came from a 'different' account?--66.217.131.62 (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear five-edit IP, you should collect evidence and ask for a Checkuser if you have insecurities regarding my more than 6000 edits on Wikipedia. Don't be "just curious".

Exactly what did you see as "nonsense" in my comment above (especially in light of yours)? Squash Racket (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Your point is that users:Roramaster, Marechiel, Mike Babic, Votec and Procrustes the clown are good accounts and I am bad ??? First 3 of this accounts are editing with help of puppets (Roremaster [57], IP editing for Marechiel [58] and Mike Babic). Votec is very odd and disruptive account [59] and Procrustes the clown for example in article about killed Serbian prime minister Zoran Đinđić write about traitor which is ploting "with the American government to overthrow the Serbian and Yugoslav governments" (Slobodan Milošević government) with help of Serbia gangs ("Surcin gang") [60].
  • I am very interested to discover who is puppeteer of this harass accounts !--Rjecina (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo and JJL

Unresolved

 – Someone familiar with the subject needs to take a look at this. –xeno (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A rather difficult situation has been playing out on the Talk:Taekwondo page over recent months, and I'd welcome administrators' comments on how best to proceed:

Context: The Taekwondo article has a history section in which theories concerning the martial art's origin are cited: that taekwondo is of Korean origin, that it's of Japanese origin, and that its origins are a mingling of influences. Edit wars and protracted debates have focused on this section, with the two extreme positions being represented by User:JJL and User:Manacpowers. JJL asserts that taekwondo is essentially Japanese karate and that no reliable sources say otherwise; Manacpowers asserts that taekwondo is Korean, and that sources support that.

Problem: Gaming the system. While neither have comported themselves well, JJL has been particularly disruptive by questioning the appropriateness and reliability of nearly every source that presents the Korean position. This usually takes the form of asserting that the source doesn't meet WP:RS[61], doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV, that its author is unqualified or biased[62][63], or that its inclusion is inappropriate under a host of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, WP:NONENG, etc.), sometimes a bit rudely.[64][65] While raising questions is fine, the volume and intensity of such questions (and the effort required to respond to them) has ground productive editing nearly to halt and to me suggests an effort to game the system.

I, User:Omnedon, User:Nate1481 and other editors have sought compromise and have tried our best to accommodate JJL and to address the points he raises. The position JJL supports is presented neutrally in the page along with the others and is backed by reliable sources, some of which I researched and added myself. However, he won't stop debating and seems to have as his goal the preferred placement of the Japanese view[66] above the opposing "myth".[67] I'm happy to do anything I can to ensure a fair and well-cited presentation, but months of discussion and two attempts at mediation have so far been fruitless, and he seems no closer now to acknowledging opposing theories than when we began.

What is an appropriate step at this point? I welcome any assistance! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid things are now turning a bit hostile, with JJL trying to characterize me as a belligerent. (The latest is in this thread.) Things are certainly spiraling and I'm at a loss to know how to proceed! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please!?! Official mediation has been tried twice (once stalled, once a party refused to participate) and I am running out of ideas, informal refereeing has been attempted by myself and Huwmanbeing but I have been sucked in to the debate to some extent, we can't get both sides to see use as neutral at the same time, if we say some one might have a point, the response it that we are obviously espousing the POV exclusively. Protection expires on 1st of August and an edit war will happen unless we can get some help. This has previously spilled onto other Korean and Japanese martial arts articles and likely will again. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

I have notified Raul654 (talk · contribs) and two other checkusers about this thread. I didn't contact him first because frankly I didn't think it would do much good, as I've expressed concerns about blocking patterns by Raul.

Raul has been blocking a simply ghastly amount of IPs in order to try to snuff out blocked Scibaby (talk · contribs). I've already expressed concern before that Raul is misusing his administrator tools with people he has a content dispute with (the thread was duly ignored: please note this does not include Scibaby, a sockpuppeteer). However, this blocking is simply above the pale; I don't have a checkuser tool, but I do see the several requests for unblock-auto affected by this every day, and I do have an IP range contribution tool which shows other editors on most of these ranges.

Range blocks include: /16:

1. 72.254.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
2. 207.67.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
3. 72.62.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
4. 68.27.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
5. 72.61.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
6. 198.172.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
7. 128.241.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
8. 72.58.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
9. 70.6.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
10. 205.212.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
11. 99.204.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
12. 99.203.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
13. 99.200.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
14. 66.215.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by Raul.
15. 68.26.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
16. 207.195.128.0/17 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
17. 66.215.64.0/18 - 1 year, AO ACB, ACB overturned.
18. 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
19. 209.59.48.0/20 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
20. 99.204.37.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
21. 72.62.103.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
22. 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
23. 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
24. 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
25. 71.196.216.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
26. 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB
27. 64.215.225.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
28. 207.67.151.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
29. 209.59.56.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
30. 207.195.244.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
31. 130.94.134.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
32. 128.241.107.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB

This is a lot of IP addresses, and it only includes the ones designed to get Scibaby (there are others that have been problems, such as 213.249.0.0/16 - 1 year, overturned by the Office).

I believe these IP ranges should be unblocked. WP:RBI works best when dealing with one banned editor, not hard blocking over a million IP addresses. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Concur This is quite a large block. I like to hear from Raul, but absent any comments, I think these should be removed. This is something not even IP block exemption can scale to relieve, at least that was not the intent of the policy when I proposed it. Yeah, these blocks need looked at. As an aside, Raul does some good work on the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum to above: All this for one sockpuppet? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Too much collateral damage, methinks. –xeno (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an impressive ammount of ranges, how come this was done for Scibaby AKA Obedium, when it hasn't been done for the puppeters with 200+ registered accounts and countless IP addresses? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious, what was the original block reason? –xeno (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have brought this kind of thing up before (as can be seen from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#Improper_block). From what I can tell, User:Obedium - sockmaster- was blocked because Raul determined he was POV pushing on a global warming article and blocked him (the only people Raul ever blocks are people who POV push against global warming and for intelligent design). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the answer to my question is: "Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV." –xeno (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I missed that in the block log. But I thought this was obvious given the nature of the case :). The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a quote from that thread you linked me to. –xeno (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul tends to prefer a ridiculous "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" approach, and apparently is intolerant of any criticism of it. Just a heads-up; I've had a run-in with him in the past over a similar issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time I ran into Raul's enthusiastic range blocking; and I see their effects at regular interval on unblock-l— there is such a thing as unacceptable collateral damage, and I think this has crossed that line. I would hope Raul would acknowledge the fact that he may have been a little overzealous and that he might want to ease up on the /16 blocks a bit. — Coren ^(talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

He won't, although he should. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Solutions

For this particular instance, is there a consensus, or can we discuss unblocking these specific ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to wait to hear from Raul what the reason for the blocks are. Some time ago when he detected increased scibaby activity he protected all the Global warming related articles. So, perhaps something similar is going on and he has tried a different tactic.

This is necessary to prevent the editors at Global Warming page from wasting their time reverting an Armada of scibaby socks. When that happens their editing pattern betray them and they are banned without doing a checkuser per WP:DUCK, and WP:Waste of Time as happened to User:Shenstar :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we could be turning away potentially valuable contributors with these rangeblocks, as evidenced by the numerous unblock-auto requests that come through. It seems we're making a trade-off of user time spent protecting a small set of articles and potentially losing valuable contributions to a larger set. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While some banned users are real pests and require drastic action to keep them off of the project, I wonder if these blocks are the best way. In my experience, banned users who have access to many IPs usually stop using an IP after it's been blocked, even if only for a short time. Unless he keeps returning to the same ranges perhaps shorter blocks would serve the same purpose while signifciantly reducing the collateral damage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful solution would be to desysop Raul. Unlike Bedford, Raul actually did something wrong--and so the community (and only the community) should endorse desysopping him. He's caused way too many problems. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, he is only causing problems for the global warming denial propagandists. Anyway, this is the previous case and my proposed solution, which admittedly is not so easy to implement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And the unfortunate souls who happen to use ISPs that are allocated IP addresses in that same range and who would like to contribute. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just ask for the block to be overturned? In these cases one could allow them to create an acount and then notify Raul about that created account so that the new editor can be monitored to see if it is not Scibaby slipping through the net. Count Iblis (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of hoops to make a potential good faith contributor jump through. I would gather a good number of them say "sod it" and are lost forever. That proposed solution sounds like it could benefit from the stable revision enhancement. –xeno (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Response?

Has anyone been able to contact him? Has he made edits since being notified, is he ignoring this? Email? Does anyone know his usual log on time? I think there shouldn't be any mass revet action taken until we hear from him. Unless he's ignoring this, than I say some further discussion is warranted immediately. Beam 01:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He most certainly has edited since; his last was just over an hour ago. I was looking at this earlier. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul doesn't usually edit wikipedia on Sunday. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tile join blocks

Just a note that Raul has also blocked large ranges of UK dynamic IPs when it would be simpler to just protect the articles that this one attacks. There are swathes of the most popular IPs blocked for 1 year, including BT, Tiscali and Sky. The thing is that even these rangeblocks are completely pointless, because short of blocking the entire ISP (tens of millions of addresses in some of these cases), one can just reboot the router and end up with a completely different IP anyway. I am on BT and my IP bounces between absolutely dozens of /16 blocks every time I switch off my PC and router. Examples;

• 81.153.64.0/18 (BT)
• 79.76.0.0/17 (Tiscali)
• 90.200.0.0/16 (Sky)

Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Half-cocked

Let's not go off half-cocked here. I just handled an unblock request from 207.195.224.0/19. There were only about 8 active IPs on that range, so I took a closer look. That range is owned by a hosting company. Hosting companies frequently host misconfigured web servers that act as open proxies and many hosting companies don't give a flying fig about the security position of their clients. Every IP on that range that has recent edits is an anonymous proxy, so I've reblocked the range with a different reason. Anyone who unblocks Raul's blocks without a damn thorough check and who thereby enables vandalism or socking is going to get a personal trout slap from me. Thatcher 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's reply

First, I'd like to start this out by noting that The Evil Spartan has a history of making false and/or misleading statements about my actions, based on either ignorance or a distorted understanding of them. He has apparently chosen to continue this trend here. Above, he says that Obedium was the sockpuppet master, and that I blocked him because I disagreed with him. This is false on several counts - Scibaby was the sockmaster - he was the first one discovered, based on a checkuser request , and was blocked by William M. Connelley. I had nothing to do with that particular block. Months later, I did block Obedium for vandalism, and a few days thereafter (following some checkuser queries) I changed the block reason to include being a scibaby sockpuppet. All of this is available in the Scibaby and Obedium block logs - had Evil Spartan bothered to check them. Apparently these thing are "obvious" to him, the actual facts of the case not withstanding. It's not the first time he's leveled that particular false claim either.

Now, about the range blocks -- The Spartan suggests that we Revert-Block-Ignore Scibaby's misbehavior. There are several problems with this approach - first, that it demonstrably doesn't work. He simply creates new accounts and comes back. It's been almost a year since he was first caught and blocked, but several hundred socks later, he shows no signs of stopping. The only method that has proven even half effective is to prevent him from registering new accounts. Second, constantly dealing with Scibaby's nonsense burns out the people who actually have to clean up the damage (Raymond Arrit quit over it). I'm sure it's easy for Evil Spartan to suggest that people RBI, given that he hasn't actually done a scintilla of work dealing with Scibaby. Those who do edit these articles, however, are quite clear in their desire to keep them Scibaby free. He wastes a great deal of time and effort from other contributors that could be better spent writing articles. Third, the ranges do not affect anyone with an account. People who do not have accounts can contact unblock-en-l and ask for one. Fourth, the ranges above were not blocked willy-nilly. I avoid blocking highly active ranges - if a /16 is active, I block the /24. Thatcher has already noted this elsewhere in this thread.

To reply to Will Beback - I started instituting year-long range blocks in place in or around February. (After shorter ones failed to stop Scibaby) He still hasn't stopped. Therefore, if after 6 months of consistent range blocks he's still coming back, it stands to reason that shorter blocks will not stop him either.

And lastly - I'm not even going to get into how ludicrous Kurt's comments are. Anyone who's seen his participation elsewhere on Wikipedia should have a pretty good idea of the soundness of his judgment. But to rebut one thing he said, he claimed (falsely) that I edited an hour before he did - several hours after I got Spartan's notice on my talk page. Apparently Kurt has issues reading dates and times. My last edit prior to this one was a full 20 hours before I got The Spartan's note on my talk page, not (as Kurt said) an hour before his edit at 01:32, 28 July 2008. Raul654 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are several hardblocks, could they be tweaked to anon-only? –xeno (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Use of carefully applied, anon-only range blocks to help control this level of disruption is fully justified. Volunteer burn-out is a serious issue when dealing with serial sockpuppeteers, and it's dismaying to see those who aren't actually dealing with the sockpuppeter giving back-seat advice on what would actually work to those who are dealing with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If the options are spend all our time cleaning up after jerks, or just quitting and doing better things with our time, because we can't take serious measures to stop said jerks, I think it's obvious what most people will be doing. ThuranX (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Based on Rauls experience, and vested nature into the project, I'm inclined to give Raul the benefit here. The rationale sure makes sense. I apologize Raul. Continue the work you do. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the fact that people/IPs can request to be unblocked is enough to determine that this did not belong on AN/I, as this is a topic that does not deserve to have anyone waste their time on, let alone should Raul, with his constant dedication and experience here, be questioned in such a strange way. Can't this be closed and killed already? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have the hardblocks been tweaked yet? –xeno (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is requesting unblock for any of those IPs to create an account, why would it matter? Wikipedia acts preventively, and so far this has been effectively preventive. Your concern seems unwarranted and would not stop the socks from being created. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. Tweaking the blocks to anon-only would stop us having to create a new account and hand it IP block exempt at the same time. –xeno (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. " Then that shows that they are perfectly capable of doing so, and the system works. Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So we should hand a brand new account an IP block exempt flag? Would be much safer to soften the block. –xeno (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a little confusing - There is a person making sock puppets. He relies on constantly shifting ips and making new accounts on a standard basis, which allows him to use the socks later. The only way to stop this is to stop the ability to create new accounts. It is not IP postings that are a danger, but sock puppet accounts. By having the people have to physical request an unblock to make an account, or permission to make an account, it prevents this automatic account creation to work, or slows down the process. Soft blocking wouldn't achieve this desired affect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps so am I, because I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. A few of those rangeblocks aren't set to "anon only". Thus even if we created an account for them, they wouldn't be able to edit (unless given the IP block exempt flag, something that isn't handed out without a good reason). Now if there is 1) a good reason for those ranges to be hard blocked or 2) an understanding that giving out an IP block exempt flag to edit through these hard blocks, then I guess there's no issue with them being hardblocks. if not, they need to be softened to "anon only". (keep the ACB). –xeno (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, and perhaps so am I, because I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. A few of those rangeblocks aren't set to "anon only"." Actually, I addressed that above. We are trying to stop socks. Some of them are already created. To slow him down, he would need to request to unblock each. To make new socks, he would need to request to be unblocked. Chances are, he could be caught before he is unblocked. Understand how this is the only way now? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So why are only a handful hardblocked? And, should I start handing out IP block exempt flags to brand new accounts that request it from those hard blocked ranges? P.S. I'd prefer a reply from Raul, as perhaps they are hard blocked for a good reason ( I did notice one of them mentioned it was a whole range of misconfigured web servers that acted as open proxies - is this the case for all of them?) –xeno (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ok, so should I start handing out IP block exempt flags to brand new accounts that request it from those hard blocked ranges? " Most certainly not. They should be forced to explain some of who they are or other such things to make sure that its not a copy and paste job. Otherwise, it would be just as flimsy as letting him have free access to create. If they are current names, their background needs to be checked to see if there is overlap and a history that connects them to the puppet master. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-auto request comes from hard blocked range. I offer to create them an account, providing my standard boilerplate text which can be seen at User:Xenocidic/misc in the collapsed frequently used wikitext (I stole it from another admin). email comes from someguy at somewebmailhost dot com. "create me an account please". so I create them an account, and hand them IP block exempt? that doesn't seem like a best practice to me. neither does forcing someone to explain some of who they are (what ever happened to anonymity?), just because they happen to be in one of these ranges. and again, I'd prefer a reply from Raul, for reasons mentioned above. –xeno (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will let Raul answer for himself, and I will have this be my final say on the matter - This happens quite often and is standard procedure when people have their IP and account blocked, and that IP rotates to someone else. It is hard knowing if the new person is actually a new person, or if the previous user is trying to game the system. Such extremes are taken because they are necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

These aren't IP blocks, they're IP range blocks. Feel free to reply, I've decided just to ask him directly. –xeno (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the ranged blocked for socks. So, yeah. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Raul. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. It isn't that an ip couldn't request an unblock, it's that an actual new editor, the most valuable resource in all of the lands of the 'pedai we hold so dear, might not know what a template is, or even where the { symbol is on their keybaord. And when they realize they are actually blocked, they're already gone. Beam 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's turning away new editors. As an editor whose ip (from one of the places I regularly edit from) falls into one of the blocked scibaby ranges, I can attest to the fact that I'm unaffected by the block once I log in. I'm not aware of what particular disruption scibaby has caused, but I do know that a disruptive sock farmer can cause frustration enough to inspire an exodus of existing volunteers, so it makes sense to take aggressive measures to halt the disruption in order to not lose valuable editors. There's enough information on the block message that comes up for a potential new editor who hasn't created an account yet to contact the blocking admin to ask for help to proceed--I know there was enough info for me to email Raul the first time I got hit with the scibaby block message just to let him know the block was hitting a regular editor's ip. I don't see any real negative effects caused by these blocks, especially if it's effective in stopping the disruption. --MPerel 05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Raul's range blocks, and I want to note for the record that Raymond Arrit isn't the only editor who has been damaged by scibaby. For some strange reason that I have yet to figure out, an administrator named Madman decided to block me for 48 hours for helping to revert the damage caused by one of scibaby's accounts in September 2007. [68] Madman claimed that I had violated the 3RR (no such violation occurred), was being disruptive (helping to revert SPA is not disruptive), and that I was edit warring (edit warring with a banned user?). NonvocalScream (then called "Navou") and Nishkid64 supported the block. It would be nice if administrators would actually do their homework before using the tools. Blocking the correct account is somewhat important here. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your editing was disruptive, lets not get twisted over 2RR versus 3RR. :| NonvocalScream (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing disruptive about reverting a scibaby account in September 2007, and there continues to be nothing disruptive about reverting their edits now. It appears that you don't understand the word "disruptive" as it used on Wikipedia, and I suggest you actually read WP:DISRUPT. You supported a bad block, and sadly enough, you have not learned from your mistake. If you are at all interested in correcting your error, you are welcome to take a look at this page and scroll down to 02:31, 25 September 2007 and below. It's pretty clear who is being disruptive here, and it's not me. Amazingly, User:Obedium was allowed to continue to edit until 28 November 2007 when he should have been blocked in September. Instead, you chose to support blocking me. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a ridiculously inappropriate block, I remember that now. All the more reason to be aggressive blocking abusive SPAs. The collateral damage to a highly productive top 100 editor like Viriditas is case in point that an SPA permitted to run amok is far more damaging to existing editors than an ip block that might possibly discourage a potential new account in the SPA's ip range. --MPerel 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me. It doesn't appear the blocks are working, since Raul deems it necessary to continue blocking vast numbers of IP addresses. If Scibaby continues indefinitely, does that mean ranges will continue to be blocked as a consequence, obstructing and potentially deterring other users from participation? Isn't there a certain point at which the collateral damage exceeds what is acceptable in attempting to prevent one person from making easily-reverted POV edits? Also, has semi-protection been tried? Wouldn't that be a much simpler solution? Everyking (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Scibaby creates multiple accounts at staggered intervals, so any attempt at SP results in a sleeper account coming out of the sock drawer. He recently attempted to do this with his last account, and he did it in full view while registered from another account. This is what sets him apart from other accounts; take a look at some examples where he creates one account after another: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], and many more. Take a look at this one where he uses one account to create two. It's easy to break the the day/edit threshold by creating a new account every x days and making y number of edits. The solution is to block on sight, and since the modus operandi is obvious (same type of edits, almost no use of talk pages), this should be easy. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul is right; I am in error as to whether he edited. I made that comment on the 27th, but I was thinking it was the 26th (which at the time was also the date of the last edits he had made). I often am one or two days off on the day of the month, so that was an error on my part.

That doesn't change the fact that his method is wholly unjustified. Saying "Unless you're the one dealing with it, don't criticize those who are" is hardly a compelling argument; I do not need to be an NFL quarterback to recognize when Joey Harrington is stinking it up, nor do I need to be a businessman to recognize when a company is going under. The "collateral damage" caused by Raul's actions is, in my view, an unacceptable tradeoff. It's as simple as that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hagger"

I randomly chose to browse Wikipedia by different languages and noticed that Tigrinya (spoken by Eritreans and northern Ethiopians) was on the list. As I have an interest in languages that developed alongside with Coptic, Greek, and Ethiopic, I decided to check it out.

I saw that the main page said "HAGGER" at the top, and that sort of freaked me out, because User:Grawp, who has a sort of obsession with typing "hagger" and using socks, sent me an email filled with disturbing spam, and prompted me to email an alert User:B, the guy who blocked Grawp from emailing others. I was also surprised because main page in other languages can be edited anonymously.

...It turns out that it was a single revision made by an anonymous edit authored by 67.83.35.73—here's the diff page.

In fact, in that page, the screen is still covered by the edit, so better yet, here's the history.

What makes the whole thing even worse is that it took six hours for someone to spot it, and it just happened to by myself.

Now I really think there should be some sort of common protection for different languages—something that covers vulnerable pages like George W. Bush, the main page, and so forth.

...does anyone know how connected these languages are and how they are currently regulated??? Also, is there a way to intercede in such matters in different language versions? ~ Troy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias are common targets for them as security and response time increases here. I believe there is, or was, a discussion regarding global sysops ongoing, which would speak to the issue of under-represented other-language projects. –xeno (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why the heck can someone edit the main page? I've never heard of it. One other question: when you say that there was a discussion, what would be the conclusion on that? Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly configured, I suppose. See: meta:Metapub/Archives/2008-07#Global_sysops_.28poll.29_.28closed.29 - The results of the poll are yet to be announced. –xeno (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a dead link to me. ~ Troy (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :/

Try again, or this direct link. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About editing the main page -- some wikis don't have full protection on the main page or don't have the full protection cascaded --> the az.wikipedia's main page got hit by Grawp a couple days ago too. And what happened to global rollback? I thought there was a discussion about that too? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You've read my mind. There should be global rollback.

You should know that some languages have no admins or only one admin, though, so it's quite complex.

There should still be semi-protection at least—I'm willing to pressure for some sort of solution if I have to. ~ Troy (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, if there are few or no admins, rollback should still be granted to someone. ~ Troy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is really just an easier way to simply load up an old version of the page, edit it, and click save... Just in case you didn't know. Also, cross-wiki vandalism can be reported here (meta:Vandalism reports)–xeno (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that the Tigrinya Wikipedia has zero admins, and zero admins is too few for any Wikipedia. I note that it's no longer possible to get a realistic view of the ratio of users to admins, though, because of global login. Apparently I'm now considered an editor at the Tigrinya Wikipedia, because I clicked over there, even though I don't even have a Tigrinya font on my computer to display the language, much less could I read it even if I did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a proposal at Meta to implement a global sysop bit, which would have addressed cross project abuse of this type and worse. English language Wikipedians prevented it from passing, and when a modified version got proposed that would have exempted English language Wikipedia, English language Wikipedians shot that down too. And many if not most of these cross project abuses originate at English Wikipedia and migrate elsewhere. If it sounds like this project is collectively behaving illogically and making life harder for the other WMF projects' volunteers, well--imagine what the volunteers on those other projects think. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it failed? I didn't realize. Where is the decision? –xeno (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Meta. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes , the same link I linked above I suppose. They left the "poll closed - results unannounced" banner up for whatever reason. –xeno (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the same vandalism at the Tigrinya main page and reverted again. I think the proposal Durova mentions should be reconsidered. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Durova is correct, there isn't much we can do about the smaller wikis since proposals keep getting shot down front, right, center, but a new proposal will be brought to meta soon just after a severe bug gets fixed...--Cometstyles 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I protected the main page and blocked the IP responsible there. If anyone happens to notice vandalism on a small wiki where there don't seem to be active sysops, bring it to either the Small Wiki Monitoring Team's attention via the #cvn-sw channel on Freenode, or to the stewards, via the #Stewards channel, for attention. Stewards have sysop powers globally now and can easily revert or block as needed. Global Rollback is in the process of being granted to some very hard working and capable SWMT members (such as Cometstyles, for instance, really a good chap) as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A thought recently came to my mind that we should make the Cluebot recognize the word "hagger". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would help. He frequently uses H...A...G...G...E...R, where each "." is a different unicode character. (I think they're different. None displays on this PC, probably due to local security configurations, so I don't know what Unicode characters they are.) I don't think we can come up with a bot which will recognize everything that LOOKS like HAGGER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They don't display due to localization issues and encoding issues with your browser. He is using UTF-8 characters that your browser doesn't have the graphic character for, so it displays a small square instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't Grawp, it's Hiwhispees (it says "This Page Was Brought To You By Hiwhispees). Grawp uses a different layout which states "This Page Was Brought To You By Grawp. Hiwhispees does not type in H....A...G...G...E...R. Hagger is a slang term coined by Grawp (Hagger's Brother). He types in "cut the economy" in LUCINDA SANS UNICODE. Thedevilsmode (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, admins may have access to #wikimedia-admin, which is useful for such cross-project cooperation.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask an op to give you an +I  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the limitations of ClueBot (it seems to be mainly a word and phrase recognition tool), but it would be easy enough to write a simple bot that would check for these kind of complex patterned structures (regexp to the rescue...). I mean, they're signature pieces; there's only so much variation they can handle without losing their unique look, and the bot can probably be adjusted more easily than the vandal can rewrite his code. if I get a chance this week I'll play with it, assuming there's an interest. --Ludwigs2 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks, disruption and continued assumption of bad faith by User:Inclusionist

I'll be as brief as possible. I became aware of Inclusionist's actions when I noticed changes to the Article Rescue Squadron page. Inclusionist began a merger which was opposed by a number of editors (the details are archived on AN/I). That problem itself is basically smoothed over. In the ensuing discussion, Inclusionist made a series of unhelpful edits and unpleasant personal attacks listed below:

• here, resulting in a warning from me here
• The second warning here referred to this edit.
• Inclusionist received a "vandalism" warning from User:Realkyhick (Which I felt was out of place) and responded by "forging" a template message to Realkyhick here. The third warning followed here.

Since then, Inclusionist has continued to assert some that some vague relationship between me and User:Prisongangleader exists over my continued requests for explanation and retraction. The first two comments (on my talk page and on An/I) resulted in this request for him to stop. since then he has continued to assert that such a relationship exists, even going so far as to make statements such as "User:Protonk lost a supporter of his position when Prisongangleader was indefinitely booted, and has been arguing passionatly against his block since then." I have asked him to stop twice, first on his talk page (as I didn't want to cloud the block review AN/I with that discussion, then on AN/I. In response to this he has responded with some claims to further the assertion.

Given this user's block record, which includes blocks following accusations that another editor was a sock/vandal/etc, I would ask that this user be enjoined from making these accusations against me or blocked for some period. I don't consider this a matter for the dispute resolution continuum as it does not strictly involve me and another editor (though a bulk of the accusations do). I also do not consider this a "content dispute" broadly defined (despite the different content stances we have). I'm asking that the community be given some relief from disruptive editing, accusations and personal attacks. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed response)

Protonk is correct, I should be blocked. Can the next administrator block me indefinitely please? Along with my sock User:RWV. (I am very serious). Inclusionist (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC) AKA RWV (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk did not argue that Inclusionist should be blocked. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"::You know I filed the current checkuser on him, right? diff Protonk (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)" the removal of this was most likely unintentional, so I'll just replace it. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update User was blocked at his (her) own request. I won't mark this resolved but it does seem to make the subject moot. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFBLOCK suggests that users not be blocked at their own request, so the block could be improper. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It says the requests are typically refused. Inclusionist has since began planning some manner of wikicide. –xeno (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

blocked user 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs) edit...

210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

this user blocked 18:26, 25 July 2008 for 48 hours by his personal attacks.[76]

Blocked period 18:26, 25 July 2008 ~ 18:26, 27 July 2008

But this blocked user created new accounts and edited as a newbie accounts for blocked period.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

anther Adminstrator worried about this,[77]

"I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

and admin worry about he is a possibly member of meatpuppet campaign which anti-Korean editing. [78]

I reported this to another admin Stifle. admin said "report his disruptive incidents at WP:ANI". [79]

This blocked user edited Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎ for Blocked period.

Now, Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [80]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[81]

210.231.12.98[82] and 210.231.14.222[83]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[84], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

210.231.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Manacpowers (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these accounts have not edited in the last 12 hours. Since many throwaway accounts seem to be involved, it could be more useful to consider semiprotecting or watchlisting the set of articles (for instance Taekwondo, Kowtow et al) that are the most likely to suffer anti-Korean meatpuppet editing from 2channel.com. (This issue was discussed in a previous ANI report). Such a list would help the admins focus their thinking. Can anyone propose which articles should be on the list? EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please No personal attacks.--Pabopa (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please point out a personal attack. I don't see any. Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

recently, Pabopa changed Prostitution in South Korea‎, Prostitution in Japan‎, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎.[85]

he violated blocked policy.(during blocked period, he edit as a newbie accounts) and make sock accounts.Manacpowers (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Wilhelmina Will's no holds barred DYK race -- I propose a temporary ban for her

User:Wilhelmina Will has resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries,[86][87] for which she has been warned on her talk page, and to reverting substantive edits in articles in order to obtain the correct number of words for DYK.

Apparently she feels so secure in doing this that she is willing to admit that is her sole purpose for reverting.[88][89] I posted before on AN/I about her plagiarizing articles, and talked to her about it, but she did not respond other than to warn me away from her and admit she didn't understand what she had copied.[90]

This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace).

Based on this I have asked that the Mesodermochelys article be removed from candidates for DYK.[91]

She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

Is this what Wikipedia should be featuring on its main page? I don't think so. I think the main page needs a break from Wilhelminia. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the DYK criteria are much stricter than the criteria for inclusion, an editor whose entire purpose is to create articles for DYK and rack up "medals" wouldn't seem to be bad on face. I can't speak to the specific problems this editor is generating but the underlying act should not be suspect in any way. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Willing to edit war, revert edits that increased accuracy and clarity in order to have the right number of words, and calling another editor "revolting" are fine by you if used for DYK, then? Ugh. --Blechnic (talk)

(ec) Oh please, Protonk, you seriously think that adding pointless verbiage to an article just to jack up its word count for DYK (which she admits doing - follow Blechnic's links) is serious, useful, appropriate editing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know anything about the specific actions the editor in question has done. I'm just contending the general premise of this statement "This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace)...She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award." Protonk (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

She certainly did edit war for the purpose of the number of words for DYK: "My reason is to keep the main body of this article above 1500 bytes. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

then the problem is the edit warring, not the motivation. the solution (DYK topic ban) is a unique and probably helpful one. I'm just defending the notion that an editor may edit to only contribute to DYK. If we had a (hypothetical) editor that did so without introducing factual innacuriacies, without edit warring and without plagarising, we would lavish them with praise. the underlying motive isn't the problem here, though it is probably key to the solution. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps something like a topic ban? No further DYK submissions from Wilhelmina until the community decides to lift the ban? If that's all she's here for, she's not doing the encyclopedia any favors. (Disclaimer: I have not evaluated Blechnic's post on the merits, but if his factual claims are accurate - which I have no reason to doubt - some kind of a circuit breaker ought to be tripped) (Another disclaimer:I am not an admin) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I suggest, no DYK submissions or credits for Wilhelmina. I'm more concerned now, after working on this latest article, about her accuracy. She clearly does not understand extinct organisms--what she is currently writing about. --Blechnic (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps the stated DYK criteria are stricter than the criteria for inclusion, but in practice, an editor can plagiarize an article from another source and have it included in DYK--then we have a big fat copyvio linked from the main page. Wilhelmina Will's behavior is sufficiently problematic that I think she (?) should be given a temporary time-out from DYK--there are credible concerns of plagiarism, and the personal attacks aren't helping. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame - there are oodles of straightforward stubs (especially in geography and botnay) just itching to be expanded out there without having to get mired in technical detail. I note Fritzpoll has offered to mentor, which may be constructive (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any kind of ban is the answer. Wilhelmina, though a little unorthodox, is a quality contributor; we should not be persecuting her for adding new content. Further, I see little difference in the diffs you've presented, Blechnic; there is no need to go searching for a conflict merely because you dislike a user. I see no inherent problem with trying to get a lot of DYK medals; the end result is lots of high-quality articles for the project. GlassCobra 05:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dislike or like her. Her contributions are not quality, most I've seen are copyvios or wrong. Her science is really bad. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was no reason to revert just to get the article up to the correct size. More can be added to the article, if that's the only DYK concern. The personal attacks while reverting to the ever-so-slightly longer version are problematic. Not to mention the factual accuracy of DYKs "extended" in this manner. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra, follow Blechnic's links, look at her edit summaries and talk page comments. Wilhelmina clearly admits that she's making changes for the sole purpose of jacking up the article's word count just to fulfill her "dream of having made 5000 DYK articles". That is just not on. A DYK ban is the least disruptive way of dealing with this. She could still edit the rest of the encyclopedia to her heart's content, but her incentive to commit copyvio's and insert useless verbiage would be gone. And the ban could be lifted as soon as she sees the light about her conduct. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the history of Mesodermochelys, I agree that there are problems with Wilhelmina Will's conduct. But can someone point me to a diff illustrating the copyvio/plagiarism issues that people are talking about above?  Sandstein  05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was another AN/I, not this one. She copied a few phrases for this that should be, in my opinion, in quotes, but the article has mostly been entirely rewritten at this stage. I'll see if I can find a link to the other AN/I.--Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to at least most of the discussion.[92] I think her latest response to this AN/I thread[93] will pretty much say it all, along with her calling me a "revolting" editor in her edit summaries while reverting substantive edits to keep the number of words high enough for DYK. She didn't respond to the first AN/I, and her initial response to me expressing concern about her copyvios, as I noted above, was to warn me to never "cross paths with her again."[94] --Blechnic (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start a tally, then:

• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Until editor gets her act together and accuracy is part of it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Based not only on the attacks in the edit summaries, but even moreso the reversions to simply keep it at the right technical length (versus actually improving the article), I support a decent-length topic ban from DYK for WW. S. Dean Jameson 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per Dean Jameson's reasons (personal attacks in edit summaries, accuracy issues, edit wars based on article length for DYK), I think I'd also support a temporary DYK ban for WW. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina until she clearly starts producing accurate quality articles and shows more civility. (I also think that DYK encourages this sort of thing, earlier this year I found and dealt with multiple issues of copyvio from an editor collecting DYKs). Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Mesodermochelys isn't the only palaeo article created by her that has been a problem. I've made to make major changes to Mystriosuchus and Corsochelys to make them in anyway accurate. In addition, many of the palaeo articles created by her lack any information altogether (see her sea turtle creations). She seems to be trying to increase the number of articles out of the article request process, which is commendable; however all her palaeo article either are lacking in information or have serious accuracy issues and some copyvios. Mark t young (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here, it seems to be you, Blechnic. Just stop it, okay? Sceptre ^(talk) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, it seems that Wilhelmina Will may have been brought up on AN/I more than the twice I brought her up ("everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here" implies a larger number than two including this one). However, I did not bring her up these other times she was brought up here at AN/I. --Blechnic (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think Blechnic deserves great credit for persistence in refusing to let an unpleasant problem be swept under the carpet. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with JohnCD.ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the short term per Mark T. Young, taking his owrd (and others) on copyvios and inaccurate material. I wonder if the situation could be saved by close monitoring and am opne to the idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support both a DYK ban and a possible overall short term block. As someone who has a few DYKs under the belt, her actions to attempt to rack up more is not only insulting to other DYK editors, but shows a complete lack of full respect for the rules regarding a DYK. In the last AN/I thread, I was ready to give Wilhelmina the benefit of the doubt, but the continuing on going problems and her responses to these issues make me feel that something more needs to be done here. I was suprised the last thread did not result in a block as she seemed to be ignoring all comments and the offer of mentoring to help correct a major issue with the use of copyrighted material, posting of blatantly false information, and the use of herself as a source. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, both a DYK ban, for a couple of months, and a short block for civility violations. Editing Wikipedia should be about improving the encyclopedia, not collecting awards. When someone edits an article with an edit summary indicating that the goal of the edit is simply to increase the word count to the DYK minimum rather than to improve content, this clearly demonstrates problematic and unproductive attitude both to DYK and to Wikipedia in general. Also, the edit summaries in the first two diffs provided by Blechnic are really unacceptable. There is no excuse for deliberately insulting other editors and the fact that the sole purpuse of WW's edits, according to those edit summaries, was to insult Blechnic, makes it even worse. I would think that a short civility block for WW is warranted just for that. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban as proposed, plus mentoring/adoption if anyone is willing - I seem to remember that someone offered, but I can no longer find that on her talk page. We need to find out whether this editor's undoubted energy and enthusiasm can be channelled towards helping to build an accurate encyclopedia, rather than accumulating number-of-articles-created points and DYK credits. (In view of the amount of trouble it seems to be causing, I wonder whether the whole DYK system is maybe more of a hindrance than a help to WP?) JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support; DYK are not an ends, and savaging articles to make them qualify, quality be damned, is not acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support civility block, not just topic ban. This bald-faced lie in regards to the personal attack diffs provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this comment not directly related to the topic ban

It is incivil to accuse others of lying. Blechnic's diff's prove that there was a "code" used. However, unless you can prove what that code means, which is impossible, then you are being incivil. I recommend that you strike your inappropriate accusations now. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC) "5o 7h8t 1 d0n'7 5e3 th3 n8m3 of 7h87 r3v0l7ing 3d1t0r" is hardly a code. it's Leetspeak. 5 = s 7=t 8=a 0=o. Claiming it's not obvious what she's saying is facetious at best. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC) And where is the target mentioned in your "translation"? For something to be a personal attack, there needs to be a person. So far, all you have done is prove that Jaysweet has acted incivil by calling someone a liar. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The target (as mentioned in the above discussion) was User:Blechnic. She made the somewhat obvious personal attack three times whilst editing Mesodermochelys (see [95] from between 22.53 yesterday to 00.04 today). Mark t young (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that is something that is impossible to prove, as "Blechnic" does not appear, and any claim otherwise is a clear contradiction to what was provided. Now, could you please stop attempting to rationalize a clearly incivil accusation as made above, which only provides support that people are here not because they are in the interest of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The fact that she tried to claim that the phrase (whether or not it was a personal attack directed at Blechnic - as it seems to be, since she's using it when undoing his edit) was some reminder to herself justifies Jay's comment. –xeno (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, what you don't understand is the difference between "lying" and "mistaking". Calling someone a liar is incivil. Claiming that they were personally attacking someone, i.e. "provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community", and their claim that they wont is a lie has nothing to do with what you stated above. This is about her supposed "lying" about attacking Blechnic. This cannot be proven. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC) No, she lied. She claimed it was her own personal code, when it's been proven beyond any doubt that it was Leetspeak. S. Dean Jameson 18:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC) To spell it out, for anyone who hasn't looked up the references: the message was "5o 7h8t 1 d0n'7 5e3 th3 n8m3 of 7h87 r3v0l7ing 3d1t0r", repeated three times in edit summaries, each time immediately following an edit by Blechnic. That is easily read as Leetspeak for "So that I don't see the name of that revolting editor". Wilhelmina claimed it was code for "Reminder: Work on Jamie Howarth's page today." That's the entirely reasonable basis for the accusation of a "bald-faced lie". JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC) No, thats clearly a misrepresentation. She claimed she wasn't attack Blechnic. The previous person said that she was. I pointed out that there is no clear object, and the use of "liar" is a clear violation of Civil: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel." Calling people a liar is not allowable on Wikipedia. It is severely incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The lie was in her trying to claim that the edit summary wasn't an attack on an editor. Whether or not it was an attack on Blechnic is, quite frankly, a red herring. Someone ought collapse this entire argument as such. –xeno (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with collapsing this. It's turning into a theatre of the absurd. Ottava Rima's accusations have spilled over onto several talkpages, and now Ottava Rima has reported me to some etiquette noticeboard for supposed incivility in calling him/her on her baseless accusations. Collapsing this is probably the best idea. S. Dean Jameson 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK topic ban and civility block. Plagarism is unacceptable, as are personal attacks. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• SupportDYK Topic Ban and Civility Block, and civility and plagarism probations. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support If Blechnic, in return, is warned over lack of AGF ("This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals") and told to stop making personal attacks ("The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately."). These actions are not beneficial to an encyclopedia, and instead harmful. These actions are escalating actions and result in further problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those don't look like personal attacks to me, but straightforward reporting of the user's behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Corvus, you cannot have a more clearer situation of a personal attack than saying someone lacks the ability to read accurately. That is clearly an attack on their person. Remember, NPA states at the top: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This was a clear breach. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair OR, that is an oversimplification of what Blechnic said - assuming good faith, we can assume that Blechnic was not saying she couldn't read, but couldn't understand the technical details of scientific journals. Not an uncommon problem, even for researchers in the field! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If I oversimplified "inability to read", then I apologize. However, the language seems to be inappropriate, and this could have been solved by a simple redaction to say there have been problems resulting from her edits that remove the scientific accuracy, instead of blaming her "ability" as the root cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While there may be a case for warning Blechnic, I fail to see why the decision about Wilhelmina Will should be conditioned on some warning to Blechnic. —SlamDiego_←T 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Because Wikipedia is about preventative, not punitive, and personal attacks cause discontent between users, which will spiral the problem further out of control. The response to incivility is not to be incivil. We need to state the facts of the case, not discuss the attributes of others, and be as objective as possible. Otherwise, problems escalate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing against a warning for Blechnic. (I have not formed an opinion on that.) I'm asking for why the response to Wilhelmina Will should be conditioned on warning Blechnic. If we simply couldn't communicate with Blechnic (and thus could not make a warning), should we let Wilhelmina Will continue? —SlamDiego_←T 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. It just seems like the situation happens around those two interacting, so the solution would have to be based on their mutual interactions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose any sanctions against Blechnic. That Ottava Rima is agitating so loudly in Wilhelmina WIll's favor, to the point of now creating two separate disruptive off-topic threads is absurd, and I ask that she be warned by an admin, and any further distracting sub-threads be 'rewarded' with a block for disruption of an AN/I thread. It's clear that Ottava is willing to risk his/her reputation, such as it is, to save WW, which is not going to work. As such, the warning would not only be to keep this AN/I focused but to prevent OR from his/her own worst impulses. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx, your comments show short sighteness when it comes to fixing the topic, and ignore the fact that I've dealt with mediation between users quite often, have an extensive background in the DYK topic area, and that I already recommended WW be prevented in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK ban until she gives reason to believe that she will adhere to the spirit of DYK when submitting. That would mean no copyvios (taking Mark T Young's word, which I have found to be reliable in the past) and meeting the minimum DYK requirements legitimately, withiut playing games. I can understand the frustration of falling a few words short and thus rewording things to use a few extra characters and being reverted, but there should be a better way to extend an article that needs extention. Rlendog (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off track with all the arguing. There is clear consensus for a preventative DYK ban. However, we need something constructive to assist her with editing articles based upon academic citations. Can I suggest that mentoring is a condition of her DYK ban being recended? Mark t young (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be absolutely necessary. I have already made an attempt to talk to her. Based on her response, we will find out if such a thing is possible on her end. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note - this was posted and there appears to be two DYK regulars who suggest opposes to the above in some form or the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The only two "suggested opposes" at DYK are me and Bedford, who raised an alternative to a ban that I agreed to support should WW follow up on it. I will always support anything short of a ban, particularly if the user facing the ban shows an inclination towards working for an alternative solution. That seems pretty straight-forward. However, Will has not shown any inclination to anything but continuing to created bad and wrong articles and edit according to her personal desires rather than accuracy.
  • Also DYK users have a link to this discussion and explicit notice of the nature of this discussion should they choose to come here and participate. It is not necessary for anyone to suggest their voices. Did you post a note at Bedford's talk page to let him know you were speaking here for him here at AN/I, thouhg? Thank you, also, Ottava Rima, for speaking for me, but I have clearly spoken for myself above. Please do not speak for me. --Blechnic (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • PS I did let User:Bedford know that you spoke for him here, as you have not notified him, according to your user talk contributions history.[96] --Blechnic (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that she could no longer self-nom until five of her articles were nominated by others,and later placed on the front page. ANI has proven unreliable, and instead of a mass lynching, it is best if those most knowledgeable about DYK practices meet out a reasonable and fair punishment that does not discourage creativity, but does encourage competent prose.--Bedford ^Pray 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Threatened in email

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed

Someone went to my profile and from there, visited my website and threatened me in email. Where can I forward this email? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 08:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM would be best. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere. If they didn't do it on-wiki (or via-wiki, such as Special:EmailUser, there's nothing Wikipedia can (or should) do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

^demon is right. RainbowOfLight, it is not a right thing to display your website on your user page. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking your website from your userpage. It's a common practice. WilyD 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I advise everyone to be very careful about what kinds of links to personal contact information they put up. Best to remain anonymous here. Chillum 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just in case the community is unaware, User:Jbmurray has also been counselling Rainbow and the anon (who is the subject of this complaint). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way, if you don't want to be contacted off-wiki, don't give anyone the means to do it, which also goes for your identity and Wikipedia username: If it's trackable elsewhere on the Internet and you do any meaningful editing here, you could have some nettlesome contacts and references about yourself elsewhere online. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my two cents into this. Expect threatening emails from people, it is a general problem for those who are working in the area of anti-vandalism and for admins. So just ignore it, they are just trying to get you out of the way. It is a sign that what you are doing is working. So just ignore them and do not let it deter you. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Do not even bother mentioning emails you get here, it is only serving the vandals purpose of getting attention. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interpersonal issues with Editors

Being basically new to Wikipedia's and the maze of "where to go", but also needing help in addressing open hostility by editors, I'm posting this here (hopefully it's the right section). I've monitored some infighting over topics over the months more because the arguments than whatever content they're arguing about, as I'm a stickler to "facts and figures" and the presentation of it as a body of knowledge (so third parties, like myself, can actually read and enjoy it!). That said, when I followed links to here [97] I found the sausage making more than tedious, and posted my view accordingly. The result is one faction is accusing me of being sympathetic or even being in the other faction, and using the page to duke it out as some "fact". [98] [99] The examples are nitpicking, and now it's even escalated into accusing me of making legal threats (the definition of libel is false accusations in print, and pigeon-holing me into whatever camp, and publicly stating so, based on personal bias, is indeed libel). Because Wikipedia is a working environment of 1000001 editors, this bad faith effort by now three editors has gotten too far, and needs to be addressed before it turns into a bloodbath. I'm not a party to whoever their ghosts are, and at this rate will probably join both warring camp societies in a good faith gesture to prove it, but I'm an third party more interested in "facts and figures" and "readability" than whatever they're into. I would like to request help in finding a 'living' guide who can help me navigate this site's many Wikisms, as reading half the food fights I'm lost to the terms (and god, if this is the response of being a third party, will need help on creating a better userpage!). Help and advice? FResearcher (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for someone to show you the ropes (which is what I think you requested), you can check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. If you're just having trouble with the slew of new terminology, Wikipedia:Glossary might be appropriate.-Wafulz (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wafulz, for the link. Main problem I'm having is navigation, as the site has many links going in 8 different directions, and with formatting styles (never thought this would be like programming itself!). Will need a human's help on the work flow. Again, thanks! FResearcher (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you have specific questions the help desk or the village pump can be very useful as well. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is a two-way street. Your first edit in 9 months was a lengthy diatribe against certain editors, which showed a significant familiarity with them, well in excess of your limited edit history. You went on to ascribe a variety of nefarious motivations to these certain editors in your second post, followed up by accusing people of libel. You then repeated your accusations of bad faith and offered to hold the "fort" for a longtime warrior in this particular WP:BATTLEground. You're clearly familiar enough to cite RfC's, AGF, criticize block lengths, and so forth, so you're certainly experienced enough to realize that accusing others of assuming bad faith while manifestly doing so yourself is a red flag to many editors here. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And good faith is to know that 1. This wasn't necessary (as he's following my posts) [100] and notice I posted here to discuss it; 2. Nor your false accusation. I think this really needs an admin's attention, because now even you are accusing me of knowing anyone on Wikipedia. You need to stop thinking ghosts are under every bed, Mastcell, as it's looking very paranoid in that world, especially when you have to really DIG for something, and something that doesn't show anything at that! lol FResearcher (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this situation already has an admin's attention - mine - though I suspect you'd like a second opinion. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Checking the time...19:54...One question for you "admin": can you check IPs? Yes or no? FResearcher (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot access IP logs or check IPs of registered users. Only a small number of users have that ability; the relevant policy is at Wikipedia:CheckUser, and there's a list there of users who can do so. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Craigkeefner‎

Would someone review the block of Craigkeefner (talk · contribs)? (I'd ask Hu12, who did this on June 12th, but he/she is on a wikibreak and his/her user talk page says "Talk page messages will not receive a response".)

From what I can tell, the "spamming" involved here is to an industry website (on kiosks) and to the editor's own website; the latter in the context of providing a source (a page on the history of kiosks) for some text that the editor added to an article. It's clear that the editor doesn't understand when it's proper to add an external link, nor our conflict of interest guideline (the latter of which has never been pointed out), but it also seems clear that this is a well-meaning, knowledgeable guy whose had a first posting to his user talk page of an incorrect accusation (as far as I can tell) that he had posted a link to kiosk.com (but he says, and what I saw, is that he posted links to kiosk.net, something completely different).

In short, I think shorter block would have been more appropriate; and I note that when the individual returned (yes, in violation of policy) under a new username Ckeefner (talk · contribs), he apparently didn't spam. While it may be too late to get this individual back (he said he's leaving), unblocking the first account would be at least a gesture that says that sometimes we do overreact to what looks like spam but is just a lack of understanding of the rules. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The first account Craigkeefner, has requested on his Talk page that the account be deleted. So I don't see a lot of point in unblocking it, unless he files a formal unblock request. The second account, Ckeefner, is still able to edit. Not sure what we can do here, unless an individual editor wants to leave a message for him to encourage him to return. Since the Ckeefner account has email enabled, anyone could write to him there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review: protection of John Edwards

I've just protected John Edwards for 48 hours. In addition to a fairly pronounced edit war involving multiple parties, there was what I consider to be a significant WP:BLP issue which led me to protect a specific version. Hence I'm submitting the action here for review.

Background: the National Enquirer, a tabloid, recently alleged infidelity on Edwards' part, an allegation which he has denied. Thus far, a number of reputable media organizations are covering the brouhaha over these allegations, though they have taken care to avoid comment on the veracity of the allegations themselves, which appear to be confined only to the Enquirer. There has been a dispute/edit war at John Edwards over both whether the allegations should be included, and if so, how the material should be phrased.

I've left a lengthy rationale on the Edwards talk page for the 48-hour protection and reversion. The protection itself is justified by the edit-war, but the protection of a specific version is always controversial. To summarize: the essence of WP:BLP is that Wikipedia is not a tabloid; that we are not Wikinews and getting these issues right takes precedence over getting them in the article right now; that the mainstream sources covering this issue are themselves seemingly skeptical or iffy about the allegations; and that while this material may certainly warrant inclusion, the dispute over the material needs to take place on the talk page, not in the form of edit-warring in articlespace.

Potentially relevant WP:BLP/N thread here, though input was fairly limited.

I'm posting this for feedback and a sanity check from uninvolved editors and admins. Also, as a minor administrative issue: should this be logged as a special enforcement action under the provisions of WP:BLPBAN? I'm hesitant to be the "test case" there, but I believe this protection/reversion are in keeping with that decision. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On the least important point, I'd only log it under WP:BLPBAN if you are intentionally using that as the basis for your action. GRBerry 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd looked earlier at the talk page, in response to a thread above. Nothing relevant has been said since, yet the edit warring continued. The edit warring in and of itself merited protection, regardless of the BLP issue. It seems reasonable to have removed the paragraph also under WP:BLP. The final version before protection was arguably worse than the version being revert warred over. Hopefully in 48 hours there will be additional evidence relevant to determining the appropriate amount of coverage. I'd consider extending the protection to a week however, with a note on the talk page to use {{editprotected}} if an actual consensus version has emerged. GRBerry 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was initially thinking of 3-5 days, but thought I'd err on the side of less protection. I agree about extending it if the same issues persist. I suspect that at the moment Reliable Sources(TM) have their fact-checkers and legal department working on the matter, and the appropriate level, tone, sourcing, etc should hopefully clarify itself shortly. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this recent addition [101] to Story of My Life (novel) by 216.136.25.72. It has twice been re-added since its removal - once [102] by 216.136.25.72, and again [103] by 72.72.203.224. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean fully protected? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Story of My Life (novel), the questionable material had been inserted solely by IP's, so I've only semiprotected it at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I confused the two. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think protection was the right move based on the edit warring while discussion was taking place. As for inclusion, I think it is possible to include only what the sources say, that the NE reports A but that it remains unsubstantiated. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The protection is called for, but I think an admin needs to take the time to synthesize data on this scandal and edit the article, even while under the protection, to mention the scandal (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression admins can still edit protected pages). At this point, the scandal has been reported in Fox News (here), and dozens of national and international newspapers. The Fox News article contains sourcing independent of the National Enquirer. To allow the pre-scandal version of the page to stand in the midst of a growing media storm is to deny reality, and bring discredit upon Wikipedia. Regrettably, this protection is now making Wikipedia the subject of controversy. RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, though it's strange without context. How's this at the end of John_Edwards#2008_Presidential_campaign? Edwards' chance of becoming Obama's running mate has likely been dashed by undenied July 2008 allegations published by the National Enquirer.[104].--chaser - t 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is a Democrat being a two-timer considered to be news? Now, a Mormon Senator caught messing around in the restroom - that's news. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot synthesize content information to resolve a dispute; an admin's opinion on a specific content dispute is no weightier than anyone else's, though admins may act to deal with edit-warring, WP:BLP issues, and other policy problems. While admins have the technical ability to edit protected pages, it would be a gross abuse to do so except in narrowly constrained circumstances (see the protection policy). This will have to be solved the good old-fashioned way - by discussion on the article talk pages.

Incidentally, I would strongly encouage outside input on the relevant talk page, since this is a thorny content issue without a clear "right" answer (though there are many, many wrong ones). Bottom lines: Wikipedia is not a tabloid. There is no deadline; it's more important to get this right rather than to race to repeat unconfirmed rumors. Outside criticism should not be ignored, but being criticized doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing something wrong. Sometimes, depending on the source, it's a sign that you're doing something right. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need to contain a frantic edit war between the warring ideologues from both parties, but the section should be added as "alleged" event. It's been picked up by multiple legitimate news agencies with independent sources.

Comparing this to Senator Craig, or using it as an excuse to dismiss the alleged Edwards scandal by the admins is a joke. Senator Craig's events were performed in front of an undercover officer, who testified as to the events that took place, and Craig admitted to the allegations. Hence, it is NOT alleged. It is fact.

The Edwards situation has received enough mainstream media attention to warrant a section documenting "alleged" or as of yet unresolved events. If or when the events are proven/disproven, the section can be ammended to reflect those changes.

But unless there is an official moratorium on events before they can be added to wikipedia, selective censorship is counterproductive to the wiki community. There are undeniable facts that 1.) SOMETHING took place, 2.) Edwards was present, 3.) all of the witness reports and evidence (from sources outside of The Enquirer), point to the idea that it was an affair or rendezvous.

Either set a timetable for how long an event must sit in purgatory before being added as "alleged" and how many sources and news outlets have to have reported it, or make the changes.

Make rules and enforce them, or adopt a laissez faire attitude. You can't arbitrarily enforce edit and posting rules

Either deal in fact and theory, or only fact. But you can't selectively remove theory. And that applies to everything.69.81.18.5 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.18.5 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2008

FYI: [105] --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - we already have a handful of IP's and new accounts dedicated to spamming that piece on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking (- and trollism)

Hi there, I am afraid there is an editor with a special interest in me who seems to care much about my badges and wikistars. Here is the history of it [106] and here [107]. The facts have been explained in the edit history given above but he seems to have a (political?) agenda and I don't know how to treat him (or her). Please advise on my talk page here [108] to keep it as private as possible. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.242.209 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the badge. The dispute seems to be that SSZ is counting edits he has made from IPs in his edit count when tallying whether he "qualifies" for the badge, and the IP that removed it isn't counting that. However, the whole thing is moot because in my experience people are allowed to put whatever badges and barnstars they want on their user page, regardless of veracity. I reverted the IP. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently nothing admins need to be involved in, but you could probably fix the problem by explicitly linking your IP and account together with notes on the user or user talk pages, and logging in is always good (what with the perks and all :) ). Unless those sorts of edits persist there's nothing that needs doing. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor user behavior from out of the gate

Resolved

 – FResearcher blocked for his unconstructive behaviors; not a sock of Profg --B (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at FResearcher‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been ignoring the warnings of administrators, has been referring to me personally at such venues as WT:FRINGE and User talk:Martinphi and seems to be on the path to making Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We need some outsiders to review his last dozen or so contributions, responses, etc. and guide him appropriately. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more research and now think that this is actually our old friend Profg. However, any outside input we can manage would be appreciated! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What administrators? And when did I refer to you "personally"? Search SA, search as you won't find it, until you addressed me personally. You guys love "upping the ante", especially when the intented reaction isn't what you planned. How long will this soap opera go on now, as it's almost 4pm and I'm looking for dinner. BTW, did posting to MartinPhi get you upset and Mastcell et al filled with this conspiracy idea, too? Well, he's the only guy I remember besides you, and I know how touchy [looks at this entry] you can get, so never bothered to post to you directly. Now that I have, why don't you get a chill pill? Being uptight is bad for you, even conventional medicine knows this! Sockpuppet now? PARANOIA CITY!! FResearcher (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My concerns about this editor are encapsulated here, here, and here. This is a newly active account with a pre-formed grudge against specific editors and a reliance on aggressive, WP:BATTLE-oriented harangues and legal threats. I'm not familiar with Profg (talk · contribs) and am curious about the rationale for concluding these accounts are related, but in the grand scheme of things this is headed nowhere fast. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at User:Profg's patterns of editing, I think you'll see that they are very similar to this person's. They both hail from the same geographical location (in the case of profg, we actually know who he is). They both edit Scientific Dissent from Darwinism-related pages before following on to areas of alternative medicine and fringe theories. The similarities are uncanny. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Still upping the ante, Mastcell? Time is 20:00 on your post, and I'm waiting for an answer if you can check IPs. Or does Wikipedia just allow superadmins such access? Because Mastcell, despite being an admin, you're actually doing what admins are told never to do -- join a dispute (and now posting on a sockpuppetry topic to even heighten it more). By joining the dispute you actually become part of the problem, not the solution. Something any admin understands either by learning or is taught. FResearcher (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot check IP's. What I've learned, as an admin, is to avoid being baited. At least, it's not going to be that easy. :) Casting me as your opponent and attacking me isn't going to work. I've expressed concern over your behavior, in an administrative role, and reiterated those concerns above. They revolve largely around your determination to turn everything into a fight, and you're reinforcing my concerns at present. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this and his previous comment in this very thread is beyond the pale. Could someone give him a block? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to wait for the IP check. It's all a big comedy to watch this unfold. But SA, I expect an apology after the check comes in, here and on my userpage, when you're told how wrong you are. Just because I come here knowing something about you doesn't mean I know anyone personally in your battles (I've read the infighting for months, that's how I know you and these dynamics. I'm a researcher afterall). FResearcher (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon people! Why do I have to put up with people harassing me this way? What did I ever do to him to deserve this? Some administrator, please start doing your voluntary job already. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor has also engaged in what an uninvolved (in that particular part of the thread) editor called a personal attack bordering on a Legal Threat. The editor seems incapable of maintaining a linear awareness of their own words, as well. After characterizing all the opposition as a 'status quo' monolithic cabal, and literally bucking for a fight, he continues to act out. ThuranX (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am familiar with Profg and this user does not look to me to be anything like him. I seriously doubt that they are the same. (I am not as of yet offering an opinion on a block for other reasons - just saying that they are almost certainly not the same person.) Following the editing restrictions that I imposed on him as a condition of his unblock, Profg's edits were under very high scrutiny and he created a sockpuppet presumably to avoid that scrutiny. Obviously, that was unacceptable and once it was discovered that he was violating the terms of his unblock with this sockpuppet, I reinstated his block. However, there's no reason to believe, based on a checkuser at the time, that he had socked before or since then. --B (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, something like [109] would be way over Profg's head. They are pretty definitely not the same person. I'm inclined to support (or at least not be terribly opposed) to a block on FResearcher for other reasons, though (just generally making things a battleground, trying to pick a fight). --B (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LHVU has blocked him indefinitely. Good block (though the block summary is unusual). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly can't argue with that. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My rationale, which I expanded upon on FResearchers talkpage, is that they represented themselves as a newbie a couple of sections above, yet a little while later in this section was dictating to Mastcell what a sysop may or may not do. I found the two statements to be incompatible, and concluded that FResearcher had deliberately misrepresented themselves earlier. Such evident bad faith lead me to take the action I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support this block. It was a very strange turn of events, and this user suddenly seemed to really have it in for SA. If I've acted incorrectly in any of this, feel free to drop me a (gentle!) note. Verbal chat 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also endorsing the block. His tirades and his escalation elsewhere and in this thread was inexcusable. seicer | talk | contribs 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, per Seicer et al. No great loss to the project. --John (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Side point - please ask ScienceApologist not to delete my comments on the ANI page. this is the second or third time he's done it, and it's a little rude... --Ludwigs2 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

in this discussion, here, and in a now-archived discussion here. if he feels my comments are unfair, that's would certainly have been worth discussing, and I might even have been convinced to edit my own statements. but just simply removing them is an unfortunate act. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've opposed SA's blankings before, and even reverted them at times. However, in the fist case, you were adding salt to a wound. 'A grain of truth' in FResearcher's ridiculous tauntings? Come off it. SA did the right thing this time by just deleting the attack. As to the second, bringing up a three week old infraction isn't worth the time. Should've said something then. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, FResearcher's response to being accused of being a sockpuppet when a cursory glance at edits makes it obvious he is not Profg wasn't overly out of whack. He felt he was being harassed and lashed out in response. That doesn't justify his actions then or other times, but I think that was probably the "grain of truth" that Ludwigs2 was talking about. SA's personal attacks in edit summaries ([110], [111]) are inappropriate. This response here is way out of whack with what FResearcher said if the accusation is false (which I contain it obviously is). So that's the "grain of truth", I believe. WP:NPA#Removal_of_text encourages caution removing personal attacks, especially when you are the "victim", so no, I can't really endorse SA's removal here at all. --B (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama / McCain article probation

Resolved

 – They are under article probation - logs of sanctions to be made at Talk:Obama/Article_probation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion a few days ago on this subject was archived. Now that ArbCom has declined to hear a case on the matter I've created a new page where we can continue the discussion, and a proposal that incorporated and synthesized some of the older discussion. It is at Talk:Barack Obama/article probation‎. Please accept my apologies if this is the wrong way to notify / propose and feel free to fix. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit redundant, since Talk:Obama/Article_probation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss that? I didn't intend to create a discussion fork. Is the proposal in place or still under discussion? Wikidemo (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't for discussion (so yours should be okay) but more of a record of the proposal being enacted, and was pending a clear consensus in the thread. However, the thread was archived (not by me) before clear consensus could be called. :S Um. I have to log off for quite a while, but

I'm thinking the proposal is in place? :S It wasn't for discussion like the link you've made but I wouldn't object to the community of sysops clarifying their position on this. (In no particular order) MastCell, seicer, Cailil, SWATJester, Gamaliel, Rick Block, Moreschi, and other sysops who are somewhat familiar with the turbulent history...your input is invited. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm never clear on what, exactly, article probation accomplishes. It allows admins to sanction disruptive editors? We're already supposed to do that. I suppose it's useful as a warning to all involved that the article is under scrutiny, and that tolerance for bad behavior or misuse of the encyclopedia will be lower than average. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's makes the sanctions binding when placed by an uninvolved admin - that's why these measures are imposed at ArbCom too, because ordinarily it won't necessarily be binding unless the consensus is clear by the community to make it binding. My understanding anyway. And yes, it also means that the article is under scrutiny...etc. etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of it also as a heightened standard of civility, and avoidance of edit warring, the availability to neutral administrators of an enhanced set of specialized tools they can use without needing to first gather consensus, specialized procedures and pages for dealing with behavioral issues (and a prohibition on dealing with them on talk pages or edit summaries), and the binding thing.Wikidemo (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is under scrutiny. The thing is that there are only a couple of admins dealing with the issue. What is needed is the view of uninvolved admins and not that of the same usual names (in no particular order). It would be better if admins would work on a priority basis but we understand the fact that admins are volunteers (same as editors) and some of them would rather intervene in an area familiar to them. The ArbCom cannot intervene when it comes to a content dispute; which is natural (there was something to note about the sockpuppetry accusation in this case however). The admins neither.

P.S. For better results, it would be better if thgis discussion be held on AN. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Should a proposal for article probation be made there then? Is that the way to go about it? Perhaps an enhanced / streamlined set of expectations for participating administrators in dealing with the article could make it a more comfortable place to help, and also enhance the effectiveness of those who do. Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidemo. I did something similar 2 days ago. I DECLARED a topic ban there. 48h. No response. I notified the parties appropriately. I understand now that the articles I've requested to be put under probation ARE under probation. But was I an "involved party". I don't know but both parties trust me... So I haven't heard from any of them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This has just came to my mind. All the above was not meant to describe all involved admins as biased. I've got no idea about that. Nuffin'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One possibility would be to embargo the articles so that every fact newer than November 2006 is prohibited from appearing until after November 2008. The exception would be a 3 sentence summary of the period Nov 06 to Nov 08. That sentence could be that the two received the most delegates, who they ran against, and the election is Nov 08. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

This suggestion would eliminate all the fighting over the campaign issues, he did this, he flip/flopped, etc.

The other possibility would be that a committee consider each edit. If the committee approved mention in one article, then it must appear in the other article. For example, both Senate careers would be written in the same way. Chergles (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

These are biographies, not articles about campaigns - the two people have very different lives and careers, and their biographies by definition are going to be different from one another, as they should be. That's not what the problems have been about. We already have separate articles for each presidential campaign. Although it's well-meaning, I don't think this suggestion is practical or addresses the problem. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at American Indoor Football Association

A new editor claims to be associated with this organization and threatened legal action in edit summary [112] ccwaters (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a {{uw-legal}} on his talk page, so hopefully one won't actually be filed. But, unless one is I don't believe we need to block him. It would highly help if sources were provided to show the information if false, though. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes due to them being unsourced, along with POV stuff like "a great season"... as well as reverting a bogus "legal threat", on principle. Such a threat equates to vandalism and is against the rules. As well as being ridiculous in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, such a threat is a legal threat, which is rather more serious than vandalism. He should be blocked if he does it again. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to revert. The user Lifebaka posted a nice friendly "Welcome" note along with a threat of his own - to cease and desist or else. The red-link has only made the one posting, so I'm guessing he's gone on to something else. If not, he'll be served a rid of Haybeah's corpse, or an ex-postal fax, or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my understanding of the policy on legal threats is that legal threat=block. Period. No discussion. Individuals making legal threats are not allowed to edit here as long as the threat stands. Of course, he's only made the one edit, so blocking may be irrelevant. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not always, as noted in Wikipedia:No legal threats. It depends. And my guess is that if he doesn't come back, nothing will happen. If he does, making the same threats, he's probably toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And he's back, and while not making legal threats, he's still got no clue of how to do things, so I reverted him again as I would any other vandal. Putting "This is correct version!" in the lead of the article is hardly "encyclopedic". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He's also been talked to, in an even-handed way, by an editor with some good suggestions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I hope that's me. I've tried to steer him to the right WP pages, and suggested he go to the talk page and explain (and reference) what's bothering him so much. Hope it works. Dayewalker (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest pointing him to the WP:OFFICE, and in the mean time, get teh article sourced up solidly. ThuranX (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now engaged in some degree of dialogue and apologized (to me alone, for some odd reason) for the legal threat. There appears to be some hope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Julie Dancer, civility issues, need other eyes on related AfD

Julie Dancer (talk · contribs) has been generally disruptive and uncivil both on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification and their talk page when it was pointed out to them. They may be seeing the AfD itself as an attack but seem unwilling to "turn down the heat". maybe it's no big deal but it seems to be disrupting the AfD process altogether. If they hadn't also accused me of being in the Robotics cabal, which actually sounds kinda cool, I feel I may be able to talk with them but it may be better for others to step in. As a suggestion, maybe offer that the article could be userfied if AfD deletes it. Banjeboi 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm hoping this user will be convinced to refrain from uncivil behavior so they can continue to participate in the AfD discussion and improving the article. Banjeboi 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the user just needs a prod that there is no cabal and to sit down and read WP:NOR. So, I've let her know about the former and most likely she'll read the latter after meandering on over here and reading this. Still, continued attacks will result in a block, so I'll keep my eye on the AfD. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD as delete, as it's been going on for a few days and the consensus of the non-sock contributors is clear. The sockpuppetry is another issue that I'll be looking into now. Kevin (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted - I would guess that we need to watch for recreation. Would she accept a mentor? --Frederick day (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I'd be happy to offer my assistance in that regard, as long as I don't need to spell properly. I think she might not be coming back, however, given that her definition of original research is different than Wikipedia's. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hijinx and tomfoolery

The following single-purpose IP's have recently appeared with the seeming intent of unduly influencing the heated debate ongoing at Talk:John Edwards, some of which have leveled personal attacks:

• 128.118.230.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.72.203.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.72.203.224‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 72.84.238.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.73.57.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.41.56.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Given references to past events (specifically repeated tirades about the liberal cabal of Blaxthos and Gamaliel), I suspect that we're dealing with Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), who disappeared shortly after he was sanctioned at ANI. In previous circumstances he admitted to sock and/or meatpuppetry specifically from PA (at least 2 of the IP's above are from same city/state that Jsn9333 referenced).

• Jsn9333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Any help would be appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At least some of these IP's are clearly related. One is the Penn State mobile network, which I'm a bit loathe to block. I think one could consider semi-protection of the talk page, given the influx of IP's, brand-new accounts, and Gawker.com spamming, but I'm not too excited about this since it prevents new users from even participating in the discussion and is probably a net negative. I would consider ignoring obvious provocation and removing posts which blatantly abuse the article talk page, as well as ongoing spam from Gawker.com. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You've hit all the nails on the head. My concern is that semiprotection of the talk page would cause more problems than it solves, and since there are no (obvious) registered accounts. Another admin suggested someone run a checkuser to see if there are any related accounts. I've not acknowledged the baiting other than to report it here. Thanks for the help so far. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation & escalation

Check out the latest personal attack, along with confirmation that this is a character from episodes past (see RYNORT (talk · contribs)). A two-fer... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking - Badagnani

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

This user has been stalking me all day, harassing me to the point of the shakes. I cannot do anything with out him:

• undoing my changes and edits;
• putting merge or delete tags on articles or templates I have created;
• contesting changes that I make;
• claiming names that I chose for new templates were "unencyclopedic" and moving them, in some cases breaking the edit bar functions or creating circular redirects.

This stems from the {{Herbs & spices}} template which I was working on for the past 7-10 days. I merged another template with it and he disagreed with the merge, so an admin locked the templates down and started a discussion here on weather we should revert the edits or keep them merged. After seven days, the discussion produced no consensus for keeping the templates separate. Once the protection was removed, I continued with the merge, and that is when he began the whole stalking thing. The other template, {{Herb and spice mixtures}}, had not been updated or reviewed in months and I set about removing it because it was no longer used, he kept removing the deletion tags. I also created several other templates, {{Commercial herbs & spices}}, {{Medicinal herbs & spices}} and {{marinades}}, to deal with issues that I and others had brought up over the past few months on the discussion page. Once these articles were created, he jumped all over them with the issues I have listed above. I am ready to create a last template about historical herbs and spices at {{historical herbs & spices}} but am afraid of what he will do once I create it.

He has had a consistent history of abuse and problematic behavior on numerous articles that he has worked on, the last time he did this was at the Tan Kai article which resulted in another block on him, his seventh. He also has a habit of using language that appears to make him appear as the victim or the straight & narrow editor correcting wrongs by wording his edit summaries with WP buzzwords such as consensus, discussion, reverting blanking etc., when in actuality he is the on violating these rules.

I have had to take two breaks today to get away from this guy and cannot take it any more. I am so upset, I can barely type. Could some one please do something, I cannot get anything productive done with him following me on every edit I make.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of this discussion for a start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are to the point of shakes, I would step away from the computer and come back after a day or two. Don't let Wikipedia affect your physical health. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a third break after writing this and am going for the forth, but I thank you for your concerns. Editing and writing usually relaxes me and gets my creative juices flowing. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will chime in here as I have worked with both Jeremy and Badagnani on different articles. I have always found Jeremy to be a thoughtful and studious editor who works for the best of Wikipedia, he uses the Wikipedia boldness philosophy well as it helps Wikipedia get past a stale level of mediocrity in many of the edits he makes. It is this boldness that seems to bother Badagnani in both Jeremy's edits and in mine in the past and a look at Badagnani's revert history, it seems the same with others as he feels that he has ownership over certain realms of Wikipedia and when someone edits something without "his permission" he goes on a coy attack with utilizing those "catch phrases" which Jeremy mentioned such as "consensus" which is a term he uses to make him look like the good guy, but I have seen through it as he has tossed it at me a number of times. As I have had interaction with this user, I do not feel it appropriate for me to make any recommendations as an Admin. towards him as it would be a conflict of interest, but his actions have become extremely aggressive as one can see that he is following all of the edits which Jeremy is making. I myself have had to close my laptop for a day to calm myself down from interactions with him. He has been accused of "stalking" other editors and harassing other editors as well in the past. His interactions with myself and others on Korean cuisine and its talk page are a prime example of how this user interacts with many users on Wikipedia. Badagnani does make some good contributions to the project, sadly he is incapable of "playing well with others".--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day

I've been taking flack for blocking User:Frederick day as a sock of indef blocked User:Fredrick day then reverting all his edits as a banned user. The thing is, is he banned? I said yes considering the length of time since his block, the fact he's created socks to evade that block and no admin has so forward as being willing to unblock. Others may disagree though so I'd appreciate comments on whether or not he's banned. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone is free to revert my revert of any edits that are perceived constructive - you'll obviously take responsibility for the edit, but it's no big deal IMO. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor is banned, de facto, by virtue of being indefinitely blocked with no administrator willing to unblock. In the past, there has been dispute over whether a single admin was sufficient to reverse that presumption— but this does not appear to be the case for User:Fredrick day. As far as I'm concerned, this is a banned user and the block-revert of his sock is exactly correct. — Coren ^(talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the banning policy - a defacto ban ONLY exists as long as noone is willing to overturn - if soemone is, then the defacto ban cannot exist. A community ban needs consensus to be overturned, not a lone voice(just clearing things up for everyone). Viridae^Talk 06:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd keep his contributions reverted for now, as per WP:BAN. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the user being blocked, though I dunno about edit reversion or if he's formally banned. I mean, I certainly wouldn't unblock him, though it seems that this incarnation's edits weren't all bad. If there's support for a ban I'll add it in myself, though I'm looking through the edits now to see if there are any that are really needed to remain, but for now I'll hold off. Wizardman 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, revert any that you wish - you take responsibility for the edit, but if they're constructive, there's no problems at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of who was criticizing your action? It seems to be exactly appropriate and precisely following all guidelines on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one. I don't want to make a big deal about it, but finding someone reverting your talk page in order to remove an innocuous comment by another editor, without explanation, is rather disconcerting and looks like vandalism. If I hadn't gone looking for this report here I wouldn't have any idea what was going on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had posted, a short while ago, a notice here about Fredrick day. Frederick day helpfully moved it to an existing discussion (where he also acknowledged being Fredrick day), and where it may have been a bit buried.[113] I'll remember that trick if I ever need to cover something up. As to reverting all the edits as a banned user, my major complaint about that would be that Ryan's revert didn't state that as the basis, the one I saw. My guess is that most of those edits were basically good edits. I restored the one that I saw that Ryan had reverted. In my report here, I noted that he was not necessarily being disruptive (beyond the fact of block evasion), though he was certainly assertive -- which can be a problem dealing with new editors. He originally "sacrificed" this sock to point out to User:DGG about problems with what has now become Iraq War misappropriations. I did go ahead and complete some of the work he was doing on that article, I hope he finds it an improvement. I'd suggest to his friends -- or other editors -- that following after Special:Contributions/Frederick day or Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite and restoring the ones that are appropriate could be a good thing. Ryan is correct, though: you will be taking responsibility for them, as if they were your own. I'll restore ones that I happen to see. After checking. --Abd (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

before following up on his request at my talk page, I did check prior history--the name was so close that with my usual insensitivity to spelling I thought it was exactly the same & was puzzled to see it. (Abd helpfully reminded me to use caution, just in case I hadn't noticed.) That and a subsequent complaint were quite to the point. We seem to have a dichotomy between our insistence on removing work of indefinitely blocked editors and suggesting the pick a new user name and behave impeccably & nobody will notice. DGG (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was WTF time for me for a while, until I figured it must be a variant spelling.... There should be no insistence on removing the work of blocked editors, but it is generally legitimate to do so, that is, any editor who thinks it to be safer for the project to blanket revert. Anyone else can then review and restore what they are willing to take responsibility for. When I did this for another blocked editor, Fred called it something like meat puppetry, which, of course, it wasn't. Ironically, one of Fd's little pranks was, when he knew I was watching his IP edits, and reverting most of them, to sprinkle some traps in BLPs. It's actually the only time I've gotten a serious warning. I figured that if some bad text had stood for months in a BLP, it wouldn't hurt for it to stand for a day more. But, no, the sense at AN/BLP was that this was a terrible thing and that each edit should be checked before removal, and I got a personal autographed warning Stop Now, Do Not Pass Go from Newyorkbrad. (The BLPs that were involved were for porn stars, and the allegedly defamatory material that I restored was actually well-sourced and not controversial. But it looked bad, and Fd knew it. Since I didn't care to do the research to find the most sterling, reliable source, I just dropped it. Did I really care if an article on a porn star had all the facts? Or, for that matter, that each and every edit of Fd be removed? No to both questions.) I would not have advised removing all those edits.... but Ryan was free to do so. I think Fred was on good behavior. Nothing I've seen was clearly bad, or uncivil by Wikipedia standards, and, in fact, I've reverted back most of what I've seen. I even voted Delete in an AfD that Fred had voted in, reverted out. Yes, pigs can fly and hell sometimes freezes over, but it was really a quite bad article that Fred found. Look, my position is that we need all kinds of editors, and my big objection to Fred was the incivility and edit warring. If he could learn to cooperate consistently (it looks like he's capable of it), he'd be a valuable member of the community. He did some awful stuff. But we don't -- and shouldn't -- punish. Just protect. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you the leader of the brigade which had the User:Allemantando account indef blocked despite an evident change in attitude? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was someone who noticed that Allemantando was possibly Fredrick day within about two days of registration, was involved in nascent edit wars with him and saw the damage done, but didn't do anything serious for almost a month, even though I saw disruption early on. I arranged for a friend of his to try to restrain him, and it worked, a little. But when he pushed and baited and continued to make a huge fuss about the mere fact that his edits and behavior were visible, I finally filed an SSP report and RfCU. And I don't recall demanding he be blocked. The fact is that he bailed before the process was complete. If he had simply come clean, or, later, had been willing to negotiate terms of a return, he might be editing yet. As has been shown, he could still be editing if he simply were discreet about it.

The rest I pick such obvious names is because of the level of hypocrisy this project displays. Everytime, I get blocked, invariably I get an message off one administrator or another who basically says "just sock quietly and avoid the areas you edited before" (and half the time it's the same admin who are here saying 'block this disruptive editor'). I don't want to sock quietly - if I wanted to do that, I could and would be entirely undetectable by the community - CU is a fairly blunt tool that is easy to avoid. But I don't want to do that, I've never wanted to do that because it avoids community oversight on my action and past conduct. I'm not being blocked anymore as a preventative measure, my block is now a punishment block - none of my accounts (whatever claims are made here and people can check the logs) were blocked or warned (*never* warned) for their conduct or editing beyond that week of fuckwittery towards the end of my time as Fredrick day (which is what? five months ago?) they are simply blocked for being me. The last time I went looking for unblock a couple of weeks ago and was discussing it with a number of admins, by an *amazing* coincidence - some edits from an ISP (*not* an IP, an ISP - one that has ten million customers) that it's said I've used in the past were dragged up and that was used to kick me to the kerb once again. It's a neat trick because at one time, I used all of the five largest ISPs in the UK - so with @ 25 million customers - I can be kicked to the kerb forever at simply saying "there he is!". --87.113.75.200 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And he still doesn't understand. Yes, the current case of User:Frederick day is an example where an editor who was editing within norms was blocked because of prior activity. The problem is that when someone has been disruptive, again and again, we start to expect it even if they aren't being disruptive right now. This is not punishment, it's protective, even though in this particular case, there is little difference in the action between protection and punishment. By extensive, in-your-face, I-can-do-anything-I-want-and-you-can't-stop-me, yes, Fd has set up conditions where he probably cannot quietly edit unless he avoids any ... disruptive behavior. The problem, again, is that the difference between "disruption" and "strong editing" is not crisp, at all. The situation is really classic. Once an editor attracts sufficient negative attention to be blocked with a block that sticks, even if that editor returns and behaves in a manner that would normally hardly raise an eyebrow, those who oppose the editor's approach will scrutinize the behavior for flaws. Take a look at User:PHG. It's been quiet lately, no huge fuss seems to be current, but he's been blocked for *good* edits that allegedly violated an ArbComm restriction, when, on the face of it, they did not, and when that was pointed out, it was "wikilawyering."

But if we are concerned about justice, I'd suggest looking at how Fredrick day behaved with respect to the block of User:Sarsaparilla, who had done very, very little to deserve being blocked, who was blocked without warning for offenses that, again, would hardly raise an eyebrow. And who pursued his block-evading socks? Why, none other than our friend, Fredrick day. Sarsaparilla was creating excellent articles, making good edits, etc., and it was all being removed because he was a block evader. Where was Fredrick day then? If he's going to write about hypocrisy, perhaps he should look at what he could actually know directly, what is visible to him when he's not on the internet. It's a good place to start, actually.

He is almost certainly lying about the IP. But if not, remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? That coincidence won't continue to happen. It was not merely that the IP was from a major service provider (he's exaggerated the risk of that), it was the content and coincidence of articles of concern. Sure, there are lots of editors out there who might, say, vandalize a user page. How many vandalize my user page? Not very many. Take a look, they almost all came from his location. Is there something about me that enrages certain Brits? Very recently, there has been Fd-like behavior from the 87.112-87.115 range, edit warring with ... me. But the article is Routemaster. Did I try to get this IP blocked because it could be Fd? No. I asked for semiprotection. The IP is still welcome to contribute. With discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And Fredrick day is still welcome to return as an editor, if he will openly acknowledge what he did, all of it -- which allows for the possibility that he's not the only person in the world who might do something nasty -- and if he will then engage not to repeat the behavior, and accept a short leash for a while. That's all. It was offered before, and he simply bailed. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I still reckon that pursuing an unblock of the original account is better than trying to get back in via socks. From what I recall, several of the "the should never come back ever, socks are bad" comments came from users who have been happy to approve the overturning of permablocks on accounts for editors they like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's not going to happen - I've socked and therefore I must be *punished* regardless of what any of the accounts were actually doing. --87.113.75.200 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From as I see it, your block is preventative, because you are constantly making new names to draw attention to your self, which is disruptive. Hard work and remorse are a better way to win support than flouting rules and showing off while doing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I would urge Ryan to WP:IAR and stop unconditionally reverting FDay's changes. The reason we have the rule that contribs from banned editors can be removed is so that we don't have to vet every single change to see if it was in good faith or bad faith. Especially in the case of pov pushers or subtle vandals, that can be challenging.

But FDay's issue was never one of good faith or of constructive edits; it was one of civility and assertiveness. There is no reason to believe his contribs were in bad faith. If he made personal attacks that offended other people, the damage has already been done. I just don't see a purpose in reverting his changes, and so I would say WP:IAR and stop doing it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted him as a banned editor - they aren't allowed to edit, so we remove any edits that they do manage to make. I'll do that in the future as well - if someone wants to take responsibility of the edit, they are free to revert me back and take control of the edit - it's no big deal, but that's what we do with banned editors. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can understand that if a user is allowed to make socks to get around his block and continues to act disruptively, than you cannot use "IAR", because IAR is for the best of the encyclopedia, and allowing people to think that they can get away with such disruptive actions are not for the best. Also, by going around and making multiple socks and acting in the manner that he just did above as an IP (assuming that is he), then he has broken AGF by his own admission. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the relevant section of the policy only state that banned users' comments "may" be reverted, so you don't even need WP:IAR; the policy even goes out of its way to say that it isn't the case that helpful edits "must" be reverted. -- (nonadmin) _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

@Ottava: I'm not saying that FDay should be allowed back to the project just yet. Granted, I really wish he'd stop with the IP socking and such, because I thought as Allemandtando he was a very valuable and civil contributor -- but I absolutely agree we can't let people back under these conditions.

I'm just saying that wholesale reversion of all of his contribs is unnecessary and not beneficial to the project. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question On a related note, is anyone willing to unblock him? We certainly have a continuum of views about his reasons for socking to avoid the ban. but I view the creation of an account "frederick day" after "fredrick day" as an inartful unblock request. So does anyone want to step forward and unblock him? Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on ANI (somebody wanna dig it up?) about allowing Frederick to return from the desert and contribute to the community. While it is largely recognized that most of his contribs these days are positive and that he probably has a genuine desire to contribute in good faith, the consensus was that using socks and IP socks to demonstrate as such is inappropriate, and to unblock him would be to reward sockpuppetry, thereby screwing up any deterrence effect we have in regards to block-evading socks.

The preferred method to rejoin the community would be to quit it with the socks and contribute to a different Wikimedia project for a few months, to regain community trust. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as a non-admin), that that would be more helpful. la-wp could do with more helpers if he wants a suggestion. (you might learn something too!) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Given his persistent socking, I've hardblocked his range 87.115.0.0/18 for a week. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (third redux)

User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about lawyering through the frivolous/unwarranted use of templates like {{disputed}}, {{refimprove}} and {{cn}}. Such practices are combined with his own deletion of credible/reliable references, such as a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books, from Yamashita's gold, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". He has given up on that, but is now attempting similar actions at Japanese war crimes This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.

I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation on January 14. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to lawyering and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation.

This all seems to be related to a personal agenda. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:

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

He also persists in misrepresenting Johnson's article as being a negative review of another source, Gold Warriors by Sterling & Peggy Seagrave. In fact it is a generally favourable review.

His actions have been decried on this noticeboard over the last week or so by User:Flying_tiger, User:Orderinchaos, User:SatuSuro and User:Cla68, among others.

It would be against the rules for me to deal with User:JimBobUSA myself and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. Grant | Talk 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No satisfaction on the previous complaints, so here we go again, eh? Grant65 fails to mention that he is the only one who has warned me, for removing his false references. I will post below (again) from the only source used to support his reference (The Seagraves novel), by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books.

• The Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate
• Are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese
• The book is full of errors
• One of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity
• The Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have take the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book

Maybe I am over thinking this, but what part of the above makes a novel scholarly. Moreover, it makes for a grand novel, with bits and pieces of real history, fictional characters and buried treasure. Nevertheless, it falls way short of “proving” the Seagraves conspiracy theories are anything but storylines in a novel.

Here is the last complaint thread(s): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive455#Japanese_war_crimes.2FYamashita.27s_gold_.28redux.29

To balance out the complaint, I would like to copy/paste this editor posting to Grant65:

"You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign." Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above can be found [here]Jim (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

-I would like to add here a notice about the request for a third opinion made on the same topic by user:JimBobUSA on Prince Chichibu article [[114]] Here is what the «third user» answered to user:JimBobUSA's request :

«I am here to offer a third opinion. I have looked at the "Yamashita's Gold" page and the "Seagrave" page. There I find In its review of Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold, which dealt with allegations that post World War II the CIA had misappropriated billions of dollars of Japanese war loot, [1] BBC History Magazine noted that whilst "numerous gaps remain.... this is an important story, with far-reaching implications, that deserves to receive further attention". [2] Now, BBC history magazine is certainly authoritative and notable enough to support "receiving further attention" here. And it seems quite wrong to call such a book a "novel". It also seems easy to find notable skeptical sources. Can someone explain why a balance cannot be reached, please? Without saying "because of the other person"! Redheylin (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC) OK I have emailed the cited author to ask for confirmation. Check the time and see how long it took. Better than bad faith? I think so. Redheylin (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

-And, here is user:JimBobUSA's usual leitmotiv when he doesn't like the answer provided:

Thanks for your time and effort. Regardless, a book review about a conspiracy theory is still just that…a book review about a conspiracy theory. The reviewer saying it is an interesting theory is not peer-review or corroborating sources for the conspiracy theory. Jim (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC) It looks the dispute will last forever...--Flying tiger (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nrcprm2026_(2nd_nomination)

I understand that there is a backlog at WP:SSP, but it's been two weeks since this attack against me was posted: could someone please evaluate the evidence presented and take the appropriate action(s)? I beg you to end this Kafka-esqe nightmare. Dlabtot (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection of a non-blocked user's talk page

This doesn't seem right to me. Should this page have been protected? --NE2 01:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not if they're still editing, imo. Did you ask the protecting admin about it? –xeno (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I referred him here, where he can participate in the discussion. --NE2 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why there is a long edit war on that user's talk over sock puppet tags there. If it really is an abusive sock, put the tags on the user page. Jonathunder (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving the tags to the user page, protecting that, and unprotecting the talk page. Any problems with that, you'll have to refer the matter to someone else as I'll be gone until next Monday at least. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is complaining here should explain better. The "bad" user is accused of being a sock of someone who retired last year. I don't know of any rule that has been broken. Retiring or right to vanish is ok in WP. It does not mean you are banished forever. Unless there is more to it, picking on the user is not right. Presumptive (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the funny thing is that Rschen7754 admits to being a sock. See that person's user page. Presumptive (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So do I admit to being a "sock"! It's the abuse of multiple accounts which is forbidden; having ones is discouraged without some sort of legitimate reason, but is not disallowed. I hope that helps. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those involved in the complaining and its not as simple as you made it out to be. See both Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345 (2nd) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x+talk. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's still no reason to fully protect the talk page of an editor who hasn't even been blocked. I hope Rschen will think twice before locking an editor out of their own talk page in the future. It's acceptable only in very select cases, and it was pretty clearly not a good idea here, whatever disruption the editor may or may not have been causing. -- Vary | Talk 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on History of Indiana

There is an edit war beginning on History of Indiana. The issue is over the use of AD\BC versus CE\BCE. An IP and a user account, who I assume to be the same person, are continually changing to AD\BC. (It appears this is the only type of edits this user\ip makes) The first time I noticed, I reverted it simply because they did not change every date and it was easier to revert the few they changed rather than go through and fix the ones they missed. The editor returned reverted my revert, at which point another editor, user:Dougweller, entered and has continued to revert this IPs edits. I personally have absolutely no preference on which system of dating is used. Another user and myself agreed to use CE\BCE when we wrote the article to maintain uniformity, and for no other reason. I am still the primary editor on the article and I am getting it close to FA status and this is getting kind of distracting. I have tried talking with the IP\user but to no avail. If there is anyway the page could be protected or some sort of action taken to prevent this edit war from continuing it would be appreciated. Thank you Charles Edward 02:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before any protection takes place, we need a policy ruling, on which version is preferred under wikipedia guidelines, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the WP:MOS#Chronological items, both styles are acceptable. I am unaware of anything more than that in policy regarding it. Charles Edward 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protection nor blocking is warranted at the present time, it hasn't really reached "war" stage yet. Still disputy. –xeno (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have no intention of continuing to revert the edits. But I am concerned the other editors involved do not share my position. Charles Edward 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The MOS also says that editors should avoid changing articles from one format to the other without a good reason. I'll leave a note to this effect on the IP's talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if it was written as one or the other, it should stay that way. (It was written as CE\BCE originally: [115]). The "reason" given in the edit summary was a purely subjective comment, so it's irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming these are the same editor, he has made changes five times, [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]. Charles Edward 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even reverting back, it would be inconsistent. And the complaint is that Indiana itself uses BC/AD and should be consistent. There is merit to that complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Indiana article wsa using CE\BCE before teh same user\ip also changed it to AD\BC. Charles Edward 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be changed back also, both for consistency and for the same principle of leaving it as it was. When was it changed, and by who? It wasn't the same IP, since he only edited once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was User:Cool10191 who muddied the waters about a month ago by replacing Indiana's BCE/CE references with a summary that stated BC. [121] Come to think of it... THAT'S YOU. What are you doing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I made those changes it was at that time using AD\BC - and i said previously, as I understand it so long as uniformity is maintained within an article then the style used does not matter. Because BC\AD was already in use on Indiana at the time of my edits I just used the same method. The CE\BCE had already been removed long before I edited. Charles Edward 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're contradicting your earlier statement. If it was originally BCE/CE, then that should have been restored. The change in the Indiana article to AD by 98.226.137.57 came on April 7 [122] it was switched back to CE on April 8 [123] and then that IP did it again on April 13 [124] and apparently it stuck. Later, the move to the spinoff article occurred, and that's when things started to get messy. This speaks more to a screwed-up policy (or lack thereof) than anything else. If there was a better rule than "whoever starts it gets to own it", you wouldn't have this problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, BC/AD is easier to type than BCE/CE. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are only around five instances of the use of BCE/CE or BC/AD, so to argue over this potentially explosive issue in this particular article seems petty to me. Is there a way to rewrite the two paragraphs such that they do not use BCE/CE or BC/AD at all? —Kurykh 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BC/AD is very traditional. My impression is the BC/AD is used more often in Indiana thna BCE/CE so this is preferred. It's the WP way to use the July 29, 2008 date style in U.S. articles because that's the way Americans do it instead of 29 July 2008. However, in British articles the 29 July way is probably preferred. Presumptive (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wrong. :This is something I've dealt with a lot. The practice is called date warring. It used to be a huge problem on Wikipedia. It's one of the reasons the folks at Conservapedia decided to launch their project. They couldn't convince others at the project to recognize that they were in possession of the TRUTH™, so away they went. It's particularly bad when someone tears through Wikipedia changing every instance of BCE/CE to BC/AD they can find to their preferred style. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:SEASON. It basically says this: unless you have a substantive reason for the change, leave the article the way you found it. Doing otherwise, especially edit warring over it (which certainly looks like it's happening), is disruptive and users doing so should be blocked. To be completely clear, efforts to preserve the pre-date war status quo are approved. Efforts to disrupt an article with a stable era style should be blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only "substantive reason" that stands out is what one of the red-links said, that the Indiana article uses BC/AD, so they should be consistent with each other. That's reasonable. The IP address' complaints, though, are emotion-driven and are irrelevant. However, I think you would find that most Indianans would likely say BC/AD rather than BCE/CE. I mostly hear the latter from non-Christians, and the U.S. is still largely Christian, hence BC/AD is what's largely used. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, the guideline was designed to stop a major edit war that was disrupting a broad range of articles on Wikipedia, and keep it stopped. A cease fire was declared. The terms of the cease fire were that violations should be reverted on sight and blocks given out as appropriate. There are links that document this somewhere if you've got a few hours to throw away. One of those IPs has done nothing but go through various articles changing era styles. The other has edited that page only. You have no idea what it's like to have a page like Judaism on your watchlist, see that the era styles have been altered, click on the editor's history and see hundreds of similarly disruptive edits by someone on a holy crusade and nothing else. My greatest success in dealing with this has been to aggressively revert and warn violators and seek blocks where necessary (I don't think it is here, yet since the editor seems to be hopping IPs.) If this individual holds true to form, he's quite likely testing the waters to see how much he can get by with. Letting this go would just be a green light to do more of the same across the whole project. BTW, he did it again and I reverted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• General comment: SJA is right on this point, whatever convention was used first should stay. I haven't seen anybody link this yet (Link to BCE debate of '05) but past efforts to implement one system over the other have not been fruitful. R. Baley (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with "whatever convention was used first should stay" sounds like ownership, which is prohibited under WP:OWN. Do not mistake this comment for support for the AD/BC people. Someone who changes all CE/BCE to AD/BC does not have my support. However, someone who changes it to appropriate articles does. I used to live near Indiana. CE/BCE was never used. AD/BC was much more common. Actually, just BC. Nobody says 2008 A.D. There are some places that BCE/CE should be preferred. Warning: my comments are not the same or in support of the AD/BC nor those for what appears to me to be ownership. Presumptive (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If he wants it changed, he can seek consensus the normal way. Now I would say what I'm afraid of now, but that might be dumb. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think this has gone on long enough. We're just turning the crank on years-old policy arguments. Since there's not a shadow of a call for admin action, I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and close this as no admin action needed. I hope that's not against the rules since, as I've said before, I am not an admin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The comment above, about "ownership" is a good point. The article cannot be a slave to the whim of whoever started the article. As with whether to spell it "color" or "colour", it depends on the context. Indianans spell it "color", and they would be most likely to use "BC" so that's probably how it should read in the article. Articles about Judaism should say BCE/CE, because BC/AD is strictly Christian stuff. The most recent edit, by an IP address making a snide remark, is the only edit by that IP address, so I don't know where the "hundreds" is coming from. But at the very least, the article needs to be consistent, which it isn't at present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Last comment just to clarify. When I said hundreds, I was referring to other experiences I've had with date warriors in the past. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I made changes to at least fix the inconsistencies. I also went with BC/AD, as that seems more appropriate to Indiana. If someone wants to switch it back to BCE/CE, at least now they've got a consistent base. And I also don't see any point in mentioning AD or CE any more than necessary. As someone noted, a year is typically understood to be AD or CE unless otherwise indicated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely with SJA. We can't let someone change the articles originally dating system because of personal preference. The latest IP attempt says "The Gregorian calendar/dating system has been the worldwide standard for almost 500 years. Any other changes are a direct assault on that precept.)" It would be a bad move to let this sort of attempt succeed. I asked for semi-protection before I saw this discussion. If we let the original format be changed simply because Indianans (and I know a lot of them personally as I have family there and visit several times a year) use AD, then a huge number of articles are up for grabs on the same basis. It isn't the same as a spelling issue. Doug Weller (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't let the original author "own" it, either. But if you change it back, be consistent. The version that was reverted to was still inconsistent within itself. I think I caught them all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We do have a precedent of going along which what the first major author does, like English varieties (which in some cases is imposed as arbitrarily as date conventions). —Kurykh 05:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT resolved. SJA, for some unknown reason, is now risking an edit war by pushing a version with both BC and BCE in it. What's the point of that??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And Bugs is doing the same by reverting my edits. I have now edited the article so that all dates are in BCE/CE style, the stable version that was disrupted by the two IP's. That's my third revert, which I'm sure Bugs knew he was inviting with his second one. Someone else will have to watch the article for now. I guess this is what editors get for coming here seeking help with disruption: more disruption. I'm sure Bugs understands that this noticeboard exists so that editors can notify administrators of situations where their tools are needed, not to reopen old debates on long settled editing policies and guidelines. Since there's no admin action asked for or needed here, will someone please close and archive this thread? I'm going to bed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want a consistent version. You've switched back to BCE/CE, and also fixed that inconsistency, so we're good there. However, you've got some years linked and some not. What's the deal with that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. Far too many years get links, years should only be linked where it is relevant to context. So some might be linked, others not. Doug Weller (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how linking 300 CE is any more relevant than linking 8000 BCE, since they are both round-number estimates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS guidelines aside, changing it back to the original version seems just as silly as changing it in the first place. All that matters is consistency; beyond that, the particular format generally doesn't matter, right? So if someone goes along and changes it to the other format for no reason, then as long as it's consistent, why escalate the situation by changing it back? He didn't actually hurting anything, and changing it back just seems to cause more trouble then it's actually worth. Leave it be. Perhaps eventually, someone will come along and change it back to the original version on a lark, without being aware of the history. That's fine, too. And then someone will change it back again, and back and forth. We'll all be better served if, instead of trying to keep it on the "original version," we just ignore it and let it be whatever it happens to be at the moment, so long as it's consistent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it and let it be whatever it happens to be at the moment, so long as it's consistent. ← I have agree with Kurt on this, and with Baseball Bugs I think. Linking to the year articles will help make the meaning clearer for any readers unfamiliar with a particular "style", so in a sense, the links are relevant to the context. — CharlotteWebb 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we have to use links to round number years to explain what BCE/CE are, maybe we shouldn't be using them. Everyone who speaks English natively and can read knows what BC/AD are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:emilyzilch

I have been having trouble with this user for a while, where she (or he) kept removing references from such scholars as John Esposito and calling them unscholarly and unreliable. Her edits and POV-pushing have caused much trouble in some articles. I have been more than polite with her despite her incivility. The tone with which she writes is very provoking, and I have restrained myself while replying to her. She has just accused me of harassing her and following her edits when I removed controversial depictions from 13 articles, two of which she previously restored. I didn't notice his/her edits to the article and after I replied to one of her many uncivil messages telling her how I didn't know she edited the article, she dishonestly complained to User:FayssalF and left messages on other users' talkpages calling me a 12-headed sockpuppeteer. The next time this user addresses with this tone, I will answer him/her with the same incivility and impoliteness. En Ne talk 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both guilty of some incivility, and I suggest you both stop it. Currently and thankfully, however, neither of you have gotten far enough to require sanctions, so please just stop it. I can see quite clearly that you two don't like each other, so I highly suggest staying away from each other as much as possible. And take the content disputes elsewhere. If nothing else works, try some dispute resolution. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit to having lost my temper because of constant provocation. You have also admitted to "chasing" my edits to "correct" me. This makes a girl cranky after a while.

However, please note that I removed myself from reverts involving User:GreenEcho/User:Enforcing Neutrality and instead referred the matter to other users. And E.N., you were just banned for having 12 sock-puppet accounts (cf the very bottom of the page Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Klaksonn if you have forgotten so quickly). Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 06:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In defense of User:emilyzilch, E.N. not only frustratingly has been deleting important content (depictions from religious figures) from Wikipedia, but content that has been agreed upon before and cannot be deleted for censorship on Wikipedia anyway. I took am too somewhat becoming uncivil. Please see Talk:Twelve Imams. --Enzuru 07:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want I keep a plate of {{cookie}}s in the back, I could go get it out. Should help, right? lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly enjoy a sweet snack full of love, so feel free... :-) Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese 2channeler target to me

I recently saw, Japanese 2 channel meta puppeting campaign.[125] after that, i saw japanese board. But i very suprised, They target to me.

You can see more Japanese anti-korea editing meta pupetting campagin in here.

:955: 名無し's MANSE: 2008/07/26 (Sat) 18:49:30 ID: YbqREnx1

Originated in karate and taekwondo is a rejection of repeated acts of sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taekwondo&diff=227978544&oldid=227977909 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taekwondo&diff=227978544&oldid=227977909

Hideyoshi's writing, but that the Korean king's repeated acts to remove it (courtesy of three跪九genuflection)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kowtow&diff=prev&oldid=227978203 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kowtow&diff=prev&oldid=227978203

Samjeondo_Monument

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samjeondo_Monument&diff=prev&oldid=227968157 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samjeondo_Monument&diff=prev&oldid=227968157

These KOEAN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Manacpowers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caspian_blue

The English version of the Korean people is an enormous w!

and possibly 210.231.12.98 is a another member of this campagin[126]

this japanese users try to change Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo_Monument by metta puppet.Manacpowers (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

possible sock of User:DavidYork71

Resolved

Toward500 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is adding LGBT cats and banners to articles in what seems to be a campaign to get Arthur C. Clark's article also added to LGBT cats; Could this be a sock of User:DavidYork71? Banjeboi 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser pinged. Tiptoety ^talk 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And  Confirmed - also 3forRon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - open proxy blocked - Alison ^❤ 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

.... and blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Baiting by User:TharkunColl

There is a continuing problem over the use of "British Isles". One editor who has engaged in this is User:TharkunColl who has previously been blocked for baiting other editors in other areas (see block log here for a number of examples of trolling and baiting attempts.) I now find myself in the situation of having potentially misleading statements made about my attempts to get a taskforce set up to try to resolve the dispute User talk:TharkunColl#WikiProject British Isles here. Since I am now an involved administrator, can I ask for another view about Tharkuncoll's contributions here? Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to read my talk page User talk:TharkunColl#WikiProject British Isles - and they will see that any alleged "baiting" that occured is, if anything, mainly in the other direction. Or if not baiting then at the very least a somewhat contemptuous attitide to my proposals and a refusal to take my points seriously, combined with a misrepresentation of my arguments. Notice also that my idea for a WikiProject had actually garnered quite a lot of support within minutes of it being proposed. ðarkuncoll 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

block review (legal threat?)

I saw this item on WT:WPSPAM, where Bsdguru was reported as for spam and some other actions. Dgtsyb reports there that a legal threat has been made here on his talkpage.

• Bsdguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• etinc.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have now indef blocked the account for spam only and the legal threat, can people please review this (never done this before)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The spam block looks fine, and while I'd tend to think that sort of legal threat doesn't go anywhere, the two certainly justify an indef block. It looks good to me. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations

This user is attempting to disrupt the GA nomination of the Baconian theory article by editing against the recommendations of reviewers Change against reviewer recommendation. He has a history of disruptive editing and has previously been reported with at least six editors testifying against him (see Violations). He also controls the Shakespeare authorship and Oxfordian theory articles by changing any edits that do not support his Oxfordian views (see Change in my edits 1 and Change in my edits 2). This has been allowed to continue long enough, I'm feeling powerless to act, and it's time a ban was enforced. Puzzle Master (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Boldautomatic

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could step in and review the following situation.

Our story starts over at Teaching English as a foreign language where Boldautomatic pops up every now and then to insert a link to a wiki which forms part of the website of ICAL, an online TEFL course provider. The insertion is removed by multiple users, and only when they're on the verge of a 3RR violation does Boldautomatic take it to the the talk page, where they consistently fail to answer (reasonable) enquiries about whether they have a conflict of interest, cast aspersions on the motivations of those who are removing the link, and generally taking umbrage about the fact that their link was deleted.

On reviewing their contributions, ICAL (TESL Provider) had cropped up as a page they created about the organisation itself, which didn't assert any notability whatsoever. I flagged it for deletion under A7 (on the basis that I was semi-involved, so didn't want to delete it myself). That then lead to a whole diatribe of argument on the talk page against deletion by Boldautomatic, which essentially boiled down to (i) other crap exists and (ii) ICAL isn't a website, it's a school. By the time the page, and its talk page, are deleted by Accounting4Taste on the grounds of A7 I'm pretty blue in the face at having to repeatedly explain the concept of notability as it related to online organisations and point the user in the direction of the relevant policies and guidelines.

Sadly it doesn't end there. Boldautomatic then moves to my talk page (starting the conversation with "So, GB, you managed to get the ICAL page deleted. I expect you're feeling very pleased with yourself", which is possibly not the greatest way to open a conversation). You can read the rest of it there, and on their talk page. All the posts fail to actually address the issues with the ICAL article, but instead amount to little more than barely-disguiged baiting and poorly hidden arguments along the lines of "well, if you're not going to let my article stay then this one should be deleted too". By the time the last post comes around this is explicitly clear, but if you're anything like me you'll be bored to tears by that stage.

To cut a long story short (too late, probably), I've answered their questions fully and repeatedly, and once the extent of the trolling became clear, asked them once, twice and three times to stay off my talk page, the last time accompanied by a pointer in the direction of the help desk where they could ask any further questions, and a warning that if they continued to ignore my request I would be asking for them to be blocked. Their response to that post is pretty indicative of their behaviour generally.

It's not clearcut vandalism, so I'm not at WP:AIV, but I'm fed up with the disruption being caused to me by an editor who it is fair to assume has a conflict of interest and I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review and take whatever action they feel necessary. _GB^T/C 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closures of AfDs by User:Finalnight

Could an admin review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV which was closed as "Keep per consensus (non-admin closure)"; there was no obvious consensus at all - certainly not such that WP:NAC would apply.

A quick check of user contributions shows that this user has made a number of non-admin closures, many of which also seem less than clear-cut:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacInsiders
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloviate_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Pinheiro
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulhaidi Omar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Gay Men's Chorus

- so a more thorough review may be needed. Many thanks!

Ros0709 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an argument to be made that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_ITV could be considered a Keep, but it's not clear-cut - which means a non-admin should not be closing it at all. I also note that it's a month old, which I didn't catch on the first read-through. I'll look at some of the others in a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the user in question, Finalnight (talk · contribs), retired from the project on 17 July; their last edit was on the 19th. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit late for this report here, eh? I would consider, after this lapse, a non-admin closure to be the same as an admin one. In either case, a flagrantly bad closure *could* be reverted. Non admins can't unilaterally close as Delete, so it is all undoable. If an admin signed on to a Delete closer -- by deleting the file -- it's really the same as if the admin had closed.

I disagree that non-admin closures should intrinsically be non-controversial. That's setting up a content privilege that wasn't intended to be included with admin status. The difference, though, is that we especially want to avoid wheel-warring with admins. Normal editorial reverts, though, aren't wheel-warring. And it is a complex issue, with some very experienced Wikipedians who aren't admins -- such as God Kim Bruning who used to be an admin and who voluntarily gave it up, i.e., could get it back at any time -- doing and favoring non-admin closures. We just saw an admin closure which was very controversial, being contrary to vote count (i.e., Delete, allegedly based on arguments but not on article content, which had changed during the AfD -- with a majority of votes being Keep, which was soundly and roundly overturned on DRV. If a non-admin closure is inappropriate, any editor is free to revert it. Once. And the remedy, other than that, is DRV. This is not an AN/I issue at this point. --Abd (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. WP:NAC seems to be pretty clear that they should be non-controverisal, and to allow otherwise would clear the way for some pretty disruptive behaviour - look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MovieKids.org, for example, and see the 'keep' !voters - think of the fun there would have been if they could just close down the debate.

Yes, this is after the event but I don't see how that matters. The closures may have been good calls, but this is not a user who was empowered to make them. I think there is need for admin intervention - the user in question has retired and this was never an issue of censure; what I am requesting is that an admin review the AfDs that the user closed and decide whether they were closed appropriately.

Ros0709 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that non-admin closures are acceptable, even if it is not 100% consensus for one result or another. In the case of this close, however, I'm seeing three Delete arguments (Per Nom, List is Redundant to Category, and the Category is more effective for this purpose) and three Keep arguments (Per Multiple Precedents, Per WP:CLS and WP:LIST, and changed over from Delete Per subsequent comments). My reading is that the Keep arguments are slightly stronger, given the citations of policy (and the fact that those citations appear to have persuaded one Delete to switch to Keep). However, it's a closer call than I am comfortable having a non-admin close, even if they do so correctly, as I think was the case here. If there's still concern about this particular close, hell, I'll counter-sign it and make it official - I would have closed the same way.

The broader issue, though, is that this horse carcass needs no further discipline. Not only was this particular close filed a full month ago (with no appeal or DRV proceeding, I note), but the editor who non-admin closed proceeded to 1) File a Request for Adminship, 2) Withdraw that RfA at 51/22/4 two days later, and 3) retire from the project on 19 July. Even if there are closes from this editor that were improper, DRV would be the appropriate venue to discuss them on the merits. Administrative action, even if it were warranted - and I do not believe that it is - would be punitive in this case rather than preventative, given that the user has retired. If you wish to discuss Non-admin closures in this context, then I would respectfully note that Wikipedia:Non-admin closure has an associated talk page at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:69.143.196.173 in Edit comments

See the edit history of 69.143.196.173 who has only recently begun editing but has already established a record of ill-considered and intemperate language in edit summaries/comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Warned user. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input on CheckUser conducted on Bharatveer

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) is an Indian editor who was subjected to editing restrictions by ArbCom in October 2007. He pushed to add an accusation of plagiarism made by C. K. Raju on Michael Atiyah. This quickly led to a heated debate, as editors (myself included) perceived BLP and libel issues could arise by mentioning the Raju–Atiyah case on Wikipedia. Soon after be suspecting some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, I requested a CheckUser to be conducted on Bharatveer and two new SPAs which popped up on the article's talk page. The results were strange, to say the least; Bharatveer claimed to be living in India according to his userpage, but CU revealed that he was using a VPN server (a closed proxy, in essence), which masks his real IP address (it currently shows him as editing in Muscat, Oman). I've indefinitely blocked Bharatveer, pending an explanation as to why he's using a VPN server, as it draws suspicion, but he denies using one or even knowing what I'm talking about for that matter. I'm not sure how I should proceed from here, so I request the community's input. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Eventually he'll either admit he's using a VPN to segregate his IP or he'll just remain indef blocked. No action required. MBisanz ^talk 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From Bharatveer's talk page: "Regarding Nishkid's "Requesting input on CheckUser conducted on Bharatveer", I think I should make it clear that I never claimed to edit WP from India. As for the WP:Proxy , strangely I was not aware of that till this block. But I have found out that my server settings does not mask my identity nor does it allows IP changing.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)" Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the checkuser case/results? I'm not finding it. GRBerry 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was conducted off-wiki a few days ago. My post above explains everything that was discussed regarding the CU result. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who were the alleged sockpuppets, are they blocked, and what were their IP addresses? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The original check was done with Perusnarpk (talk · contribs) and Bharatveer. Perusnarpk's IP was not traced back to Oman, but a different country (you could take a guess). Abhimars (talk · contribs) is another SPA who I found after my initial CU request. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I conducted the checkuser work on this case. It was  Confirmed. The IP in question (a static IP) was also checked out by a technically skilled user. They identified it as having a computer name "terminal2k" and being in operation for VPN. This is a form of closed proxy, where a user could be editing from round the corner or from a whole continent away, and their edits will all have that computer's IP. It's very uncommon. The other user was a dynamic IP in India. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the sockpuppets are blocked is a good indication of the blocking admin's conviction IMO. For what it's worth I agree there's something fishy there, though I don't see any problem with an editor consistently using a single closed proxy, it's really the accusations of sockpuppetry that need to be looked at before the checkuser results. Perusnarpk is clearly someone's sockpuppet, judging by their familiarity with Wikipedia (for example creating an RfC and talking about Bharatveer's ArbCom restrictions in their first week). Abhimars (talk · contribs) likewise. The dense prose, references to the eminent or prominent mathematicians and the allegations of plagiarism are all remarkably similar. It's either sock or meatpuppetry, and there doesn't seem to be any other suspected puppeteer in sight. I guess you can add Tksinghal23 (talk · contribs) to the list of SPAs. I also find Bharatveer's explanation of proxy use to be unsatisfactory. This is not the type of proxy where you don't realise you've set it up, especially if not all edits are via the proxy. ([127]). I don't know the best way forward, whether it's a ban or some further restrictions on not using proxies (I am not familiar with this user's history), but I agree with the blocking admin's interpretation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of links to potential copyvio sites?

I would like to get a 2nd opinion on the mass removal of links by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) here is a sample of his contribs with such removals. Basically this editor is removing a massive number of links with the edit summary, "(Remove Link - Don't link sites that link to copyvio!!)." Is this within policy? Any input on this would be appreciated. (This orignially came up at WikiProject Aircrafts Wikiproject Videogames talk page) Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works says in relevant part "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". GRBerry 14:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I guess it's fine to remove external links, but he's also fucking up citations on articles as well and not cleaning up after himself. SashaNein (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it hosts copyvio, it shouldn't be used as a citation, there are sites which have simmilar information, without having the copyvio. Besides if people were more careful about what was linked the need for mass sweeps would dissaperSfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your belligerent attitude is not helping your case (nor is posting warnings to the talk pages of people involved in the ANI). Mass sweeps of this nature have consistently been looked down upon (such as when 2 editors were banned for doing such with the MOSNUM issue), especially when they're being based off of one person's interpretation of what's a valid reference or not (as you are removing references as well). If you were being more careful and actually attempting to replace references with "similar information", then the need for an ANI would disappear, and your edits wouldn't be coming off as self serving and disruptive. A perfect example is a reference on the Commodore 64 page which you blasted the link to a pdf copy of the article that the direct quote was referencing, instead of simply replacing it with a text only reference to the magazine issue, page number, etc. which was all right in front of you. And you did it twice. That's the sort of action people here are considering disruptive. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. He's removing mass amounts of references and reference tags as well and doing things rather sloppily. If a reference uses a specific page on a site that may have some commercial things elsewhere, that's very different than just including a generic link to the site itself or to a copyrighted work. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been watching his talk page for months (probably since November at least) and he just keeps doing it. If you take the time to go through his thousands of edits, you'll notice they are almost all such sweeps of links. The issue is, mainly, that he's not checking them, just burning the house down to get rid of the termites. His talk page alone, beyond that, is pretty telling I think. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Belive, I do check them... If you'd like to supply me with a list of contested removals, I'll see what I can do about them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the edit times make it plainly obvious he's using a bot to just sweep through a specific address/domain he doesn't like. There's no actual individual checks to weed out anything. Personally, this tactic is coming off as disruptive editing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass-blasting through things is a bit funny-looking, but I had a look at some of his contribution delays and while they are quite short they don't look very bottish; there are fairly random fluctuations all over the place and he rarely goes below 30 seconds/edit. I'm not an administrator BTW, I just can use a graphing program ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Since when is implementation of WP:EL considered 'disruptive'? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why you are doing this with an alternate account [128]?— Ѕandahl 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When its being done in the manner you're doing it, and causing enough havok to cause enough of your peers to take notice and do an ANI. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mat Maneri page - Under constant personal attack by a user in Gdansk Poland

Resolved

 – Semi'd for 72 hours. If they don't get the message, a rangeblock may be required --Rodhullandemu 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The page about Jazz musician Mat Maneri is always under attack from a user with an IP address in the Gdansk area of Poland (the IP's always start with 83.11). It is known that Mat Maneri and his wife have been the subject of a harassment and stalking campaign from a woman in Poland. She has been using this page to say defamatory things about Mat Maneris wife (call her names and using racial slurs) to posting information about Mat Maneri's declared income over the past few years.

Mat and his wife have already had this woman arrested and convicted in the U.S and are working with the authorities oversea's to stop her constant barrage of nastiness. This is just one of the sources where she finds a voice, it is a shame she can do this.

Could this page not be blocked from editing? It is really awful that an individual can use this great website as a place to promote hate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.13.18 (talk • contribs)

Another sysop semiprotected the article for a few days. I've watchlisted and will extent if the problem continues.--chaser - t 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to be "stalked" by someone on the other side of the ocean? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Leetpriest blocked

Resolved

 – Everyone agrees that the block is good

I just indefinitely blocked this user for an NPOV violation accompanied by the following edit summary, "Remove this, and I swear to fuck that I will bankhead every fucking server that your wikitrash is on." I feel that this was beyond the pale. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good decision, Orange Mike. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this name rung a bell, as you probably saw on his talk page, we had a discussion on his edits back in April. Good, smart block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Good call. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now why would we block someone who's an obviously devoted defender of neutrality? Tsk. ... okay, yeah, endorse block - nice one, OrangeMike. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I'm marking resolved, everyone agrees. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Swear to F" is one thing. But wikitrash? Them's fightin' words. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillman

This editor's User and Talk pages have been protected since 2006 and 2007 respectively, but this seems inappropriate since Hillman is again actively editing. In particular, an editor has requested assistance in getting Hillman to stop posting their real name. If nothing elseWithout offering an opinion as to the merits or otherwise of that complaint, I think an admin ought to unprotect User Talk:Hillman to allow for normal communication with this editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Sandahl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety ^talk 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The user talk page redirected to the user page, which was protected. I've removed the redirect, but left the user page protected. What are the diffs where here discloses the identity? Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

User:Lakinekaki didn't share some relevant information with User:SheffieldSteel: Lakinekaki's IRL identity arose in the context of an apparent WP:COI vio in a current AfD. Since I participated years ago in a previous AfD involving Lakinekaki and the same issue, I left a comment (clearly labeled as such). Please see

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bios_theory (an OLD AfD from when I WAS an active user)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Process_equation (a current AfD in which I left a COMMENT)

It seems to me that Lakinekaki is violating WP:GAME by accusing me of WP:STALK and so on (see his recent contribs). I do not consider myself an "active user" since I am not editing articles and only rarely leave talk page commnets. I thought my comment in the AfD provided useful background information, but if it seems to admins to pose some kind of problem, I'd be happy to remove it.

As for the issue of the protected talk page, that was done by User:Xoloz in the context of intense harrassment by IP anons (socks for a permabanned user) back in 2006. I actually asked for semiprotection of my user pages, but at that time, semiprotection was rarer than full protection. If any admin wishes to point me at a definition of "active user", please go right ahead! TIA ---CH (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The better question is: should we restore the 1,500+ deleted revisions of his talk page, since he's now active again? I believe the answer to be yes, since it was deleted as part of a right-to-vanish, apparently. An "active" user is one who's making edits. We have an unfortunate surplus of users who are "active" solely in projectspace and wikipolitics, but they are nonetheless active despite a lack of article edits. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do leave my user page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman/Archive protected until we sort this out. MastCell, is there a definition of "active" versus "inactive"? If there is, and if my comment in the AfD would "activate" me, I'd be happy to remove it. Fair enough? ---CH (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but understand that by you editing you are "active". Tiptoety ^talk 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I? Active? Is there a definition? I'd rather remove the AfD comment to which Lakinekaki is objecting if there is a consensus that this "activates" me. ---CH (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that commenting on an AFD should not automatically make you "active" (whatever that means). If you start to vote for "Delete" or "Keep", or edit articles then that is different. Count Iblis (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems User:Xoloz has retired, so he cannot explain to other admins the context in which my user page was protected. It seems that there may be an unmet need for a definition of "inactive status" as in "right to vanish". I certainly don't want to be considered "reactivated". Have any admins looked at the AfD I cited? If there is concensus that my comments yesterday concerning Lakinenaki "reactivated" me I'd much prefer to remove them (or have an admin delete them if that would be more appropriate) and to reclaim "vanish". Please don't unprotect my user pages until we get this sorted out, and to avoid confusion, please converse here so only have one place to look. TIA ---CH (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am getting the sense there is not yet any definition anyone can cite. Can some more admins look at my edits from yesterday and let me know here whether they think I am really endangering my inactive status? If that were so I'd much prefer to remove my comments and to reclaim my right to vanish. ---CH (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break. You are active. It's a binary thing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are actively editing, you are active. We are not conversing with someone who has vanished, as that is not possible. Jonathunder (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are actually three classes of users in this respect: active, inactive, and vanished. Whether you consider yourself "active" or "inactive" is somewhat irrelevant: new edits under the same username means you are clearly no longer "vanished", a term which does have a very specific definition under Wikipedia:Right to vanish. As such, your user page history should be restored, at least to the extent that it does not reveal private information. — Satori Son 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But where is the appropriate policy or guideline? I ask for discussion (admin comments only please!) concerning which of the following would "reactivate" a user account:

• leaving a comment in a current AfD (identifying myself as "former Wikipedian")
• commenting on the Essay controversy (identifying myself as "former Wikipedian")
• pointing the Signpost at some news item I came across and thought Wikipedians would enjoy
• leaving a brief Hi, miss you! type comment on some user's talk page
• logging in to write a PM

You can check my contribs, but I think this pretty much covers everything I've done at WP since vanishing in 2006.

Jonathan, I agree there is something to discuss, but where does one draw the line? What's the policy or guideline which governs this issue?---CH (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's Wikipedia:Right to vanish. Especially the part that says, "There is no coming back for that individual." — Satori Son 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Satori, that seems to have changed a lot since my day but it seems pretty clear. As I understand it, the only allowed behavior would be logging in to write a PM--- do I have that right?

Given what I said above about preferring to undo my comments to reclaim my right to vanish, how can I fix this? I'd be happy to remove my comments from yesterday, or should I ask an admin to delete them? ---CH (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish is only a guideline, it clearly says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Clearly this is an exceptional case. Count Iblis (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Iblis! I agree my case is/was unusual, but I also think the questions I raised above might apply to other cases as well. Another issue for inactive users is that the policies/guidelines have changed so much since 2006. I seem to have confused "vanishing" with "inactive"; upon consideration I think vanishing is best for me, although I'd like to keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman/Archive as a protected and presumably inoffensive archive of the kind of thing I WANTED to do at WP... sigh...

It does seem that a concensus may be emerging that I should NOT have posted even a comment in the AfD yesterday. If so, should I remove my comments from yesterday myself? Or ask an admin to do so? I want to fix this so that my status is "vanished user".

For the future, I request that admins put up a guideline and try to promote it to policy about vanishing, since this is an important subject. Since simplicity is best, I suggest "no publically viewable edits" might be a simple criterion for vanished users to follow. TIA!---CH (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavily involved admin pretending to be uninvolved

GRBerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pretending to be an uninvolved administrator at WP:AE#Levine2112 request despite having an extensive history of acrimony with me and having punitive actions he has taken against me reversed on more than one occasion. Could someone please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)