Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487

Return of Aoso0ck

Resolved

 – Blocked for edit warring, etc. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Aoso0ck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked twice for edit warring at medical specialty articles. He is now back reverting almost 3 months of changes in 3 seperate articles. Messages on his talk page are blanked, and the edit summaries he uses make no sense. NJGW (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of for one week. But... given tenacious tendencies of this editor, I have to ask if this is this enough? NJGW (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

After further review, I've extended the block to 30 days. Dreadstar † 06:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• 30 days is probably more than sufficient. I'll mark this resolved for now. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil Spector

I've reverted Phil Spector three times today, in view of of blatant NPoV and BLP issues [examples redacted]. The new anon editor who is adding them doesn't seem to heed warnings on their talk page (some of which, oddly, refer in error, to Leonard Cohen). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no error in referring to Leonard Cohen. The I.P. has been problematic there as well, inserting clear and problematic BLP violations (involved admin are welcome to check out the I.P.'s deleted contributions. The I.P.'s talk says it's a rotating I.P., changing each time a user disconnects, but has clearly been used by the same person for at least the last nine hours so I've softblocked it for forty-eight hours. If a new I.P. pops up and pulls the same stuff, I'll semi the affected articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In the template at the top of the talk page, the only parameter given is name of the ISP. All the other "information" you see is generic and probably impertinent (see Template:ISP). On a cable connection they aren't likely to change IP very often unless they deliberately change their MAC address. — CharlotteWebb 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I THINK I hear a "quack"...

...but I'm not sure. Here we have it: User: Lilmae and User:Danargh. These two users were created within four minutes of each other today; now, each of them has a small number of highly-similar, experimental but then self-reverted contributions to the same article (Arthur (TV series)). I wouldn't call either of them a vandalism-only account (not yet, anyway) but there seem to be just a couple too many coincidences here to blithely AGF. Should I request a checkuser, or am I being overly paranoid? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks a bit socky. I think a CheckUser's in order, per WP:DUCK - of course, they might not know it's not allowed, or it might just be a coincidence. The latter will be revealed by a CheckUser, and a polite note on both talk pages will reveal the former. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jodybhater

Resolved

This appears to be a SPA which has performed one edit on my user page. Would someone consider blocking this account for me? I don't feel I should do it as that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest. Tanks JodyB _talk 12:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --barneca (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with one red shoe

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Move along. VG ☎ 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with one red shoe seems to have a habit of wiping his talk page, which I see has contained quite a few warnings relative to the amount he has contributed. I am currently choosing not to get into an edit war with him at Bucharest even though I think he is utterly wrong on the matter at hand. Someone who has not been in conflict with him might want to look into the pattern of his edits, I've seen just enough to tell me that I'm not willing to assume his good faith, which means I should stay out of the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Without looking into the rest of it, any user has the right to blank their own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Oren0 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, when an editor gets reported and an admin finds they have a habit of blanking their talkpages which just happen to contain many warnings regarding the same things... Well, it usually doesn't go well for that editor. However, if an editor becomes a well regarded member of the community - who needs those reminders of a less than savoury past cluttering up the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with people looking into my history. As for blanking my page is not related to any warning, I don't let any comment on it. So, what is the complain about, my edits in Bucharest, or my blanking my talk page -- just to be sure that I understand what is this about. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any rule. So, what's this about? man with one red shoe (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I really hoped to just add a request for someone independent to take a look at your conduct, and reach whatever conclusion they might, and other than the request I intended to stay out of it myself, because I'm probably biased by how I crossed paths with you. But since you ask me directly:

1. I thought your removal at Bucharest was wrongheaded, so I reverted it with an explanation. You reverted me back.
2. I don't engage in edit wars, so I did what I usually do in a situation like this to try to work out whether to work this through with an unfamiliar editor on on the talk page of an article. My two quickest guides to someone's character on Wikipedia are their user talk page and their contributions. The short of it is, I didn't particularly like what I saw. It looks to me like you make a lot of contentious edits (and few uncontroversial ones), and have a habit of blanking your talk page. Blanking your talk page is allowed, but it is generally considered dubious conduct (I think pretty much any admin will back me up on that). Contentious edits are allowed, but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.
3. What I saw was enough for me to conclude that I didn't want to spend my time engaging you in discussion (though I guess I've now wasted even more time than that would have taken. Oh, well). It was also enough to make me wonder whether on net you are contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia.
4. Taking off my editor hat and putting on my admin hat, I was a bit concerned about the combination of contentious edits and blanking the talk page. I felt someone should follow up and see if there was a problem here (there might or might not be, I really have no firm idea), but since I was already annoyed over the Bucharest matter I basically recused myself from being the person who would follow up.

In short, I've asked here for someone disinterested to look into the pattern of your edits, because what I saw concerned me. If they say "no problem", fine, at least from an admin point of view. That's definitely the last I am saying on this. I'm no more interested in having a fight here than in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1. So you didn't agree with my edit and you decide to report me to the Admin noticeboard. Nice. BTW, I explained my revert too, you didn't provide a reference that the nickname is still in use.

2. Why you didn't open this discussion on Talk:Bucharest instead of bringing this to ANI for two reverts on a trivial matter? Did I refuse to talk to you in the talk page?

3. So you decided that it's not worthy to discuss with fellow editor, but to report him/her to ANI... again, very nice.... are you an admin? is this the common attitude among WP admins?

4. Blanking my web page is well within my rights and it shouldn't be suspicious, this is a under-the-belt hit, it's like judging somebody for how they walk or how they talk not for what they have to say. If an admin will tell me that's against the rules I will stop blanking my talk page but till then I will do it and I don't like to be reported to ANI for something that's well within my rights.

BTW, I don't respond here because I'm afraid of any consequinces because I know that I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm a bit concern to see an admin behaving in this shameful manner. Basically you didn't like two of my edits and you reported me here with no basis bringing up arguments "blanking my talk page" that shouldn't have any weight. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Jmabel was perfectly right in reporting you here. It is not normal to blank your talk if you've been repeatedly warned. Just be honest and you'll get somewhere. Arguing, rather than negotiating/explaining what you did to everyone isn't going to get you farther. Just my 2 cents --Belinrahs (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See the history of my talk page, I've always blanked my talk page, is not related to any warning, and when Jmabel reported here I didn't have any fresh warning, and most of the warnings have been frivolous (or at least that's my opinion), Jmabel didn't post anything in my talk page, but again, my blanking the page has no relationship with any warnings and as far as I know blanking a warning is a sign that you got the warning, the warnings are in the history anyway, so this is not a cover-up attempt, it's just how I deal with my talk page and again this is well within my rights. Are you an admin? Is this an official position that I shouldn't blank my page? Is there a policy regarding personal talk pages that I've missed? man with one red shoe (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jmabel that there is a disturbing pattern here reinforced by the constant blanking of the talk page while making contentious edits, blanking legitimate warnings. One of Jmabel's comments was very interesting to read "but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.". This comment relates to it [1]. The comment shows going to an admin to fight for keeping "trollish" comments on a talk page that is for suggesting improvements to the attached article. While the user himself described the comments as trollish, he launched a whole campaign to keep and post them again and again, which included AN thread, talk thread, and the above qouted post to an admin all the while not explaining which guideline of Wikipedia mandates posting and retaining admittedly "trollish" comments on article talk pages. Hobartimus (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote block at least for a little while, per the findings of Hobartimus. The user clearly has no interest in doing anything constructive for Wikipedia. --Belinrahs (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in that dispute on the nickname for Bucharest, but it looks like User:Man with one red shoe is removing a nickname despite talk page consensus, which is also supported by plenty references. So, I'd say he's at least POV pushing, if not downright trolling. He only engaged on discussion on the talk page yesterday (Oct 26), before then he just kept reverting with no discussion. There's still some hope he'll give up without being blocked. YMMV. VG ☎ 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"he just kept reverting" - I reverted two times and each time I explained why. The admin who reported me here didn't even start a discussion on the talk page, I did, which shows that I'm willing to discuss my edits. I think your description of the events is misleading.

As for the issue that Hobartimus reported, I stand by my actions, people were trying to censor on talk:Hungary by removing comments that they didn't like -- no other reason. The conflict was solved when we got a third opinion that basically supported my point that we shouldn't delete content in talk pages unless there's a clear violation of the rules. Obviously I was on the right side of the fence, Hobartimus is not unbiased since he was part of that discussion which didn't end up the way he would have liked. Again, I'm not at all ashamed for that discussion against censorship, if you don't believe me take a look at the events and see what was the third opinion and the result of the debate. Why should I be judged and punished because I voiced my opinon against censorship when people eventually supported my position, not Hobartimus'? man with one red shoe (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread seems remarkably free of concrete evidence of any wrongdoing on MwORS's part. Nothing even remotely approaching blockable. Move on people, nothing to see here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

US Dept of Homeland Security

I just blocked 204.248.24.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is registered to the United States Department of Homeland Security. While it's not in the list of IPs that we're supposed to report, I thought it was notable enough to bring up here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some of those boys don't have enough to do. And given that department's purpose, maybe that's a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Forward and reverse DNS for that address match, as "sbcp6.dhs.gov". The edits have politically related content, although they're not electioneering.[2]. They read more like something from someone who didn't get that Wikipedia isn't a blog. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More than that, this one is out-and-out vandalism. Hmm...when the organization who is charged with keeping America safe is doing some attacking, one has to wonder. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Back around the time of the first Gulf War (1991), I recall reading that the first people outside the inner circles of government to know that something was going down were the pizza delivery people in Washington DC due to the sudden increase in late night deliveries to the Pentagon. Thatcher 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially known as the Domino's Theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When blocking a sensitive IP, it's usually good to notify WP:COMCOM by leaving a note at the notification page on meta. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't ever forget this useful tool -t BMW c- 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bbiw/TLF

Resolved

 – Sent to MFD.

Are the opinions expressed in this user's subpage appropriate and permissible? It talks about a "small group," gives their name, and says in part "A fairly unknown organization, operating in the US. They are NOT considered a terrorist group and currently they do not stand as one" ..."The government is twisted in its own lies and should be removed immediately unless dire changes happen."..."We are the savior. We are the destroyer. Stand with us or fall. The time has come."..."A night of terror will follow.." Is this a permissible use of a user sub-page? Edison (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an article in progress. If the user page says Do NOT try to contact me in hope of retreving information about TLF what other purpose does he have than to distribute a message (and then claim not to want to distribute it)? Odd. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this is either a prank or someone who stopped talking their medicines. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor has done nothing in Wikipedia but to create this sub-page, and a userpage that says what Moni quotes above. I'd say this should go to MfD, stat. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

done --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Total Liberation Front is apparently a Cyber Nations alliance. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User created a page with malware link

I just blocked an new user User:Jdeveaux14. He/she created a page now deleted that links to malware. I opened the page and was sent automatically to a malware site that set my anti-virus off. I deleted the userpage that contained the same link. I have attempted to delete the page he created but I can't. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Jdeveaux14. Beware the page will redirect.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I finally got it but the deleted diff still redirects. — Ѕandahl ♥ 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dina Cocea

This was created as a copyvio. Creator has removed the speedy tag and stubbed the article but the copyvio is still in the article history. Can someone delete the first 2 revisions please? Exxolon (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll see now if I can add a bit to this micro-stub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24 and rollback

This user has been edit warring on multiple articles over the past couple months and is now using rollback to implement his changes. See herehere here and here he is using rollback to remove sourced information added by a user he has been edit warring with because he happens to not agree with the content personally. None of these edits are vandalism, and if you check out the contribs there are dozens more instances where this user has abused the rollback feature. Landon1980 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the intended use of rollback, user's right should be removed.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Was gonna await feedback from the user in question, but I cannot think of a reason to not remove rollback. ~~

Removed. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As disappointed as I am with Ibaranoff24 for misusing rollback in the first place (I, after all, did give him rollback several months ago, on the condition that he'd use it correctly), I'm curious to know why it was so urgent to de-rollback him when, as of this time, he hasn't been online for an entire week and hasn't even been given much of a chance to respond to this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless de-rollbacking was absolutely necessary (i.e. the user was warned and they continued abusing it anyway), I thought the user was supposed to have at least some time to respond first to explain their actions and avoid making the mistakes again. Maybe I'm missing something, or just haven't participated in many rollback removal threads...I don't know, but at any rate, I'm not going to restore it. Just surprised at the removal rush, that's all. Acalamari 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he knew he wasn't supposed to use it to edit war with, and to use it only to remove vandalism. Acalamari, you gave me rollback and explained very clearly when it was appropriate to use rollback. I'm nearly certain you explained to this user as well. If you will look back through his contribs a bit you will see he has been edit warring on multiple articles here the last month or two and has been abusing rollback for quite some time. He was taken to AN3 a couple times here lately for edit warring. Landon1980 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PERM: "Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed." Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:CasperMovieSequel200955555

Resolved

 – Alright, that's a wrap! -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This User:Lyle123 sock was reported by me to AIV last night just before he started in on what I knew would be a slew of bogus movie articles and sure enough, he did one. It's been deleted, but the sock remains unblocked. Might I impose on someone to block this sockpuppet as soon as possible? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Exorcised. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't want him healthy, we want him go...Oh. Exorcized.

LOL! Thanks, bro. Next time the little "demon spawn" (mwaahaahaaaa!) decides he's going to refill his sock drawer, I'll drop a line on AIV. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – User talk blanked and locked by MaxSem. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Talking about obtaining information about Wikipedia's legal status? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It isn't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Just so that I'll understand in the future. Although your bald comment without any other explanation doesn't really appear helpful. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no threat here,just silliness. Even if he did look at the guidelines for "GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING YOUR STATUS" as a charity, so what? He's quite entitled to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about this little number an administrator put on his talk page. Seems extremely bite-y.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in reply to [3] which was a nine times repeated block capital attack peppering a user talk page. But I have softened it a bit... --BozMo talk 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This more recent one is more explicit, came about during a conversation following an unblock request. Noting for clarity. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In case the deletions that started all this winds up at WP:DRV or under review by the Foundation, I have reviewed the deleted articles and searched for reliable sources with verifiable information that would show if these meet notability requirements. A Google search for "BBrad's Kids Cancer Foundation" gave no hits. Google serch for "Brad's Kids Pediatric Cancer Foundation" turned up six hits. These include MySpace pages for the organization, pages for a partner, Literacy Volunteers of Illinois, and the Wikipedia article for that group. Google News searches for each turned up no hits. As did Google Scholar and Google Book searches. The articles contain no assertion of notability. The articles' only source is the group's MySpace page. The group does not appear to meet WP:N or WP:CORP. While the group's work is commendable, this is not sufficient for an article in an encyclopedia. The articles meet criteria for speedy deletion. Dlohcierekim 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Shared Accounts and Meat Puppets and Computer Sharing

Resolved

Martha Erin (Marthaerin1888) and I (MDCCCXLVIII)-we happen being biological sisters who currently attend the University of Wisconsin La Crosse-are good hearted Wikipedia editors who are newcomers and amateurs.

Martha Erin-my sister-started Wikibreak October 12th and she has confessed to meat puppetry and shared accounts (that is, Martha Erin, 23 others, I did edits using each others' edit accounts AND used meatpuppets-me included). Also, we shared Martha's computer while editing Wikipedia-THIS is her computer I am typing this notice on.

My sister already performed last messages. Anyone can put messages on Marthaerin1888 or my personal pages at MDCCCXLVIII. My names' Linda Michelle (actual name Lindsay but I prefer if you call me Linda much better). Martha Erin plans returning to edit Wikipedia between August 2010 and November 2017; I prefer waiting until mid Autumn of 2012 at the very least or September of 2015 (after we finish University of Wisconsin La Crosse Issues). But however can we prove that we would never do the work of vandals while on Wikipedia?

And also informing that 12.210.198.245 shall be retired as of Sat November 1st 2008-in other words my sister will no longer need the IP address number that is given to her computer from an ISP serving the area of La Crosse and Winona. And also, is sharing the computer at the same time you edit Wikipedia not very smart?

Linda of MDCCCXLVIII

Until Martha Erin and I return, so long folks. I shall resume MDCCCXLVIII upon my returning. Miss Martha will resume under alternate account-please note, however, the talkpage is protected over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.198.245 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me who finds that complete incoherent? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure all I heard was a lot of quacking. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both registered accounts listed above have already been blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

12.210.198.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was able to post here because FisherQueen's 2-week block on the IP expired recently. Since this IP is evading a continuing block on a registered account I've reblocked the IP for one month anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's disturbing to think that UW-LaCrosse is producing students who write that way. Why take 5 or 6 paragraphs, when "please block me" would accomplish the same result? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the massive amount of vandalism we get from school-IPs, is it any surprise that users who state they are in schools are a little...off? HalfShadow 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading this, my brain felt like it melted into Nutella. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At least Nutella has nutritional value, unlike the above. -t BMW c- 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nutella looks like the dessert equivalent to vegemite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo....Nutella is good, vegemite is inedible. (imo) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nutella is the hazelnut equivalent of Peanut Butter ... with a little milk and chocolate added in for "health" value. -t BMW c- 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And Vegemite is what you get when a bottle of beer throws up. HalfShadow 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs and Shadow: You forget, 30% of high schoolers and 50% of college students never graduate. Probably because they spend too much time vandalizing Wikipedia and teabagging their roommate when he falls asleep. As both a semi-productive college student and a semi-productive Wikipedian, I'm shaking my 40 in anger at this sort of behavior. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 03:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover (talk · contribs) and the Barbara West article

I'd like you guys to take a look at this -- he claims on the article's talk page that his violations of the three revert rule are just, and claims that political commentators are not "reliable sources". He seems to be using IP sockpuppets to do more reverts for him. We've been attempting to mediate with him but it's just not working. An administrator's opinion and maybe a checkuser would be nice. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd comment and/or take action, but I'm probably a little biased. Tan | 39 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected... but this article does need some attention. The subject is very much in the news in the US, and (supposedly) her husband has made edits to the Wikipedia article to "correct" it. This could become a very high profile article very fast. Note that this is probably not a "Joe the Plumber" type article, since the subject, as a longtime news anchor in a mid-sized market, was likely notable even without the zillions of stories written about her in the past week. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

COI editors/possible puppets

• Joseph M Boy (talk · contribs) has created User:WadeWest for WadeWest (talk · contribs). Joseph M. Boy appears to be related to SolgamesUSA where Wade West appears to be a director.
• The WadeWest (talk · contribs) claims to be Wade West, Barbara West's husband and has edited the article about her.

Getting really strange here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, it gets stranger. Joseph M Boy (talk · contribs) got me involved in posting SolgamesUSA, sensing he may get fallout from the situation with WadeWest (talk · contribs), who is good friends with him. I ended up trying to cleanup the article on Wade's wife's article, being that it was a complete mess at the time: I even requested admin semi-protection to block the random IPs (I think Wade and Joe tried editing before creating accounts, as well as some vandal kept popping up). I've gotten Joe's participation on here straightened out, but I can't speak for the Wests: I don't know what they're doing at this point. Cwolfsheep (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Hello, I am Joseph Boy, Real Name, I know Cwolfsheep and User:WadeWest. I asked Cwolfsheep to assist me in understanding how to properly fix articles without causing any issue on wikipedia. Since my background is computer repair and running a charity not making posts or writing. I have know Wade for over 20 years and I am assuming he is just trying to learn about wikipedia himself so he can correct some of the slanderous remarks that have been posted to his wife's article. I have not spoken to Wade about it. I did go ahead and made a user page for him since he is menitioned in the article and it would allow an explaination of what he really does for a living rather than what has been implied in the article. The only changes I have made on Barbara_West_(TV_news_anchor) were corrections to a reference that was going to an old version of the site on my home based server and moved it to the real location on a webserver that is hosted on a t3 line (able to handle the bandwidth) The referenced website is identicle and was not changed I just removed it from my home server to reduce bandwith issues. I may have made a few other minor changes but nothing large scale as I was asking advice from an experenced wiki user. So to clear the air, I am not a puppet (whatever that is) but myself and Wade West are two different accounts. I know Wade from the fact he is a board member of the Non-Profit Charity SolgamesUSA that I run and figued I would help his wife's article. Joseph M Boy (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

68.198.120.66

Resolved

 – Wrong venue Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out this user's edits. (ChocoCereal (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

For those who like links [4]. --67.155.253.248 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please report vandalism to WP:AIV after the user has been appropriately warned. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while.(ChocoCereal (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

User:Damiens.rf block review

Resolved

 – Block was appropriate.

I blocked Damiens on Saturday for one week for violating 3RR immediately after coming off of a previous block for violating 3RR. He's trying to raise a stink on his talk page because I didn't notice another editor violated 3RR with him... (Admittedly, I just checked his contributions, noticed a ton to the same page and looked at the diffs - I didn't even worry or think about the other editor). Can I get a review of this block? --Smashville^talk 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been appropriate to have commented to Rebecca, warned even, regarding the edit war, but I don't see that it invalidates the block on Damiens.rf; An editor may revert once, perhaps twice, and then they should discuss it - and this editor should know that. Unless he is claiming vandalism, that is bad faith editing, there is no allowance for continually reverting. Valid block, but perhaps Rebecca might be invited to comment here despite the edit war issue being stale? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Block looks legit to me, procedure followed. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed per MBisanz, legit block, User blocked should deal with it as it was way too soon after his first block for the same violation. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 03:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I'd reviewed this block when an unblock was requested on 26 October. Smashville, you really should've looked at the other side, because there's no doubt that Rebecca should've known better, and been warned. In this particular case however, I don't see an inequity or invalidity in the block because I consider it an early detection of a problem editor. The 10RR was a major issue (blocked), then ignoring 3RR again was another issue (blocked again), but then the editing itself was (imo) a bigger issue, although no one has mentioned it in this thread so far. To put it briefly; if he continues editing in the way he has been, I won't be surprised if ban proposals are put forward in the near future. I do hope that there will be a reform in his editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know...I was kind of looking at it single-mindedly and didn't notice the other edits...I'm going to leave her a note on her page...--Smashville^talk 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, this is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting BLP vio revisions from a large article

It might be a good idea for someone with more powers than me to delete Barack Obama and restore it minus the, uh contributions from Hyperkraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a problem for me because the article has over 5000 revisions. If the consensus is that these edits aren't worth the trouble, fair enough. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I only see 2 from that user, and they were both reverted. What am I overlooking? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say they're not worth the trouble. There's probably far worse buried in the distant history of the article, like these edits will be in time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yeah, two extremely nasty edits. Sheffield is suggesting the article be deleted and then all edits restored but for those two to remove them from the edit history. The problem is that when an article has this many edits, only users with certain privileges can delete them. Currently when you try to delete you get the message: "This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the value. Anyone could vandalize anything at any time. And even the slanderous nature of the edits only speak to the idiot who wrote them, not to Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like a compromised account. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromised? With ten contribs before the vandalism started, and some of them a bit unhelpful, it doesn't look like that to me. Oh well.

In other news, I have two editors complaining via email about being caught in a rangeblock, presumably because of my blocking Hyperkraz. These are Melromero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was actually blocked for 3RR, and DivineBurner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is apparently not blocked at all, including by an autoblock. What to do? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:IPEXEMPT flag them. Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any rangeblocks recently issued by SheffieldSteel. How could a simple block of a registered account like Hyperkraz have had any effect on Melromero and DivineBurner? You could try asking these two editors to mail you the result of the exercise given in Template:Autoblock. I also don't see that you have hardblocked any IPs lately; that's the only other thing that comes to mind. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

it may be related to the block made on User:AntiChauvinism. β^_command 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This may be the time to wonder when the supposed "revision deleting feature" will come out – a proposition that, in my eyes at least, has grown to the legendary proportions that SUL once had before the devs finally got that feature in. It's always a pain to have to have to delete the entier article and check box all but diffs you want restored; it gets expoentially harder the older and more popular the article is. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If they do introduce such a feature, it will take edit-warring to a new level. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

repeat range block needed, please - 189.192.xxx.xxx

This is a vandal-only user who has done nothing but be disruptive for quite a while. His/Her range has been blocked at least three times now, the most recent block lasting one month. Nothing seems to deter; as soon as the block ends, the nonsense edits begin again. Requesting yet another rangeblock.... please and thank you! - eo (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IPs shown here: [5]

Last incident report here.

The necessary rangeblock is 189.192.0.0/16 - see [6]. Blocked for six months. fish&karate 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SA on a WP:CANVAS tear

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#User:ScienceApologist

Uh, I'm an involved party, but geez. . . [7][8][9][10][11][12], etc. Ronnotel (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw it come flying through my watchlist, we appear to be at 13 project and usertalk pages so far. Maybe he could consolidate to a single noticeboard thread at Fringe or here? MBisanz ^talk 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw notes on OrangeMarlin's and MastCell's talk pages, and thought that was okay. But I think you're right that SA has overdone it a bit here. Has he been made aware of this thread? Probably just saying, "Hey, maybe not quite so much canvassing next time..." is probably all that needs to be done here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that first but I've been invited to stay the hell away from his page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh... Fair 'nuff. I notified ScienceApologist of this thread and echoed my sentiments above, that I thought the scope of his non-neutral notification was a bit excessive. Full disclosure: I am very sympathetic towards SA's efforts in general, and am somewhat of a ScienceApologist apologist. :D I do think he goes overboard sometimes, as he did here. Hopefully this can be resolved peacefully. Cheers! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the anti-anti-science stuff so much. It's the methods I take exception to. From his user page, he seems to think Inquisition v. Galileo should be reversed on appeal. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel is a cold fusion sympathizer with a grudge against me that could eclipse the moon. The situation at Cold Fusion is dire and we need outside eyes to look at it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the root of SA's frustration is that wp:fringe, although theoretically part of Wikipedia policy, actually has no force. The real policy is "the majority rules", and if the editors attempting to implement wp:fringe are not in the majority, the policy does not help them in any practical way. For those of us who see the policy as an essential part of building an encyclopedia, this is a pretty disappointing state of affairs. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll say one more thing. If people think that made-up rules like "Hey, maybe not quite so much canvassing next time" make sense, then I can just as easily do it under-the-table from now on and just start e-mailing people privately. I thought it would be better to do things above the table, but if people are going to be dicks about it and entertain the complaints of heavily biased parties who have been nurturing vendettas against me for years, what alternative do I have? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems the test at wp:CANVAS is if the actions are disruptive. Does anybody see these actions as obviously disruptive to Wikipedia? These are short statements at neutral sights which illustrate a big NPOV concern (namely that fringe pushers are constantly reappearing to deconstruct valid previously established scientific consensuses... cold fusion is just one example). NJGW (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The policy cites an ArbCom decision to the effect: "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I guess the question is whether the people being contacted are regular contributors to the Cold fusion page or not. Some of the contactees certainly are regular contributors, but by cross-posting to the various project pages, it seems possible, if not likely, that the ArbCom test might be met. I agree that there is a gray area here but I would like to familiarize SA with this interpretation so his future actions are in line with policy. Ronnotel (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that ScienceApologist perceives a situation where the regular contributors to this group of articles on a fringe science topic don't represent a balanced, neutral POV. The purpose of WP:CANVASS is surely not to discourage new participation from a broader range of editors in such a situation. Requesting contributions from relevant WikiProjects is, in general, a good way to encourage article edits from editors with an interest (and ideally, expertise) in the subject area. In the future SA should probably phrase his notices with a bit more tact, however, and avoid bringing his concerns to AN or AN/I unless administrator intervention is sought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As a general statement, posting brief requests for comments or notices of discussions on project talk pages is a good thing, in my opinion. It allows for all interested parties to be informed, and prevents the appearance of canvassing to specific of editors. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Posting neutral comments at WikiProjects is definitely okay. However, the comments of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were definitely not neutral.[13] He also appears to have been canvassing individual "friendly" editors with similar non-neutral language.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] These actions are disruptive. --Elonka 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how the specific actions in this event are disruptive to the project or to the Cold fusion article. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is what WP:FTN was invented for. And it works OK - at least as well as individual messages on usertalk pages, and it raises a lot fewer hackles. I bet virtually every editor canvassed by SA watches the fringe theories noticeboard - just leave a note there. As a general principle I am uncomfortable with situations where dedicated proponents of a fringe theory outnumber more neutral editors, and I find this to be a recurring issue on Wikipedia. However, leaving a large number of individual talkpage notices is problematic for a number of reasons. Let's use the mechanisms we've designed specifically to address these sorts of issues - that is, WP:FTN. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who reads those boards? I was just informed yesterday that WP:STALK was replaced by....I don't even remember, nor do I care. Cold Fusion is utter crap, I was in medical research when it was announced, and it was utter crap then, and it continues to be utter crap. I intend to watch the article, and if it's still crap, I'll ask anyone I damn well please to help out. I keep a list of crap, fringe-theory articles on my User talk page. I'll add Cold Fusion I guess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Elonka. So, according to YOUR rules of all this, the best way to keep fringe content on this project is to stomp down on intelligent, scientific editors and suppress free speech. I get it, make sure to keep the fringe articles secret, so we scientific types can't find it. That's not going to work, and that is a very bad idea. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I share OM's view and SA's of Cold Fusion, and I even share their view that the people with a less-than-scientific approach to it have dominated the article, but to send to multiple noticeboards is at best unsubtle. And what I see just above is a declaration of intent to ignore the canvassing rules. I consider the invocation of "free speech" in matters like this an analogy to Godwin's law. Mast Cell is right--we have a method that should eliminate the need for this sort of approach. DGG (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that well, considering that Pcarbonn (a tendentious WP:SPA who has openly admitted to coming here in order to "correct" the real world's dismissal of cold fusion) has not resulted in any kind of sanctions despite a clear violation of WP:OWN, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:BATTLE over many months. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn has made a rather large number of edits to the page, namely 869[22] and further 987 to the talk page. The article has been rolled back to the version that was featured at least twice, there has been numerous threads on many notice boards, a meditation effort... nothing has changed and the topic comes up regularly. I think a topic ban both on the article itself and on the talk page for Pcarbonn would not go amiss here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant prior WP:AN thread is here; I supported editing restrictions on Pcarbonn then, and I support one now, as he has in both word and deed prioritized the promotion of fringe ideas over the encyclopedia's mission and policies. I gave up when someone told me that my "agenda" - to help produce accurate, high-quality medical articles - was equivalent to Pcarbonn's agenda to use Wikipedia to raise the visibility and credibility of a fringe claim. That's when I decided that these noticeboards were essentially useless. But FWIW, yes, Pcarbonn should be on 1RR at best, and a complete restriction to the talk page of cold fusion would be most appopriate. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research on Ryu (Street Fighter)

• An IP user keeps adding information to Ryu (Street Fighter) that is clearly original research. I would ask for the article to be protected, but I feel as though he's just not clear on the OR policies. But I can't contact him because his IP keeps shifting, and I have a feeling he wouldn't look at the talk page of the article. What's the best course of action here? JuJube (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it to talk anyway, which can't hurt. I don't see that the IP is being particularly aggressive, so it's not really something that needs administrative attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were me, I would just request the page be semi-protected. An inability to edit would at least force him to sign up for an account, where you would be able to get his attention and discuss it on user talk pages. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GooglePedia12 again

GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs · logs) is back - not sure if this is relevant here or where I should put it. He's created Greek ethnic groups/subdivisions and Greek Ethnic Subdivisions plus Greek Ethnic Groups which are redirect pages to it. He's also added this to Romaniotes along with a basic change in the lead [23], Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clear history of defamation and vandalism by 90.229.165.94

Resolved

 – Reverted two day old edit. Previous edits were a year ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

90.229.165.94 history shows a consistent record of vandalising wiki content with edits of an inappropriate and sexual nature. At least one edit is a clear incident of libel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.14.204 (talk • contribs)

The forum for reporting of vandalism is thataway. Tan | 39 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban recommended

It is clear from all his edits that User talk:Loneshredder is a vandalism only account. I suggest an indefinite ban. I suspect the person is the same or is associated with the now banned User:Sillystring32. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by User:Spellcast. In the future, you can report vandalism-only accounts to WP:AIV. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)}

Okay, and thanks for doing the block. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ItsLassieTime continued incivility and false accusations

Resolved

 – Official warning issued to ItsLassieTime

I first encounter User:ItsLassieTime back in February while editing the Lassie (1954 TV series). At first, she seemed like a good editor, new but ready to learn. I'm the one who welcomed her here, offered advice, etc. After in April, we came to a large disagreement over the Lassie articles (though I honestly can't remember why, and can't find anything specific to point to as the bone of contention). Anyway I walked away from most of the Lassie television articles doing only minor edits to a few film articles.[24] Lassie later claimed I "chased" her away from the article, but as can be clearly seen from its history, she continued to edit the article well into May before she apparently took a wikibreak.[25] She apparently returned to editing sometime in September. On October 2, I also started revisiting the Lassie articles. We came to another conflict over the Timmy Martin article. I tagged the article for issues and removed an inappropriate non-free image ItsLassieTime had added to the article.[26] ItsLassieTime quickly reverted. When I again removed, AGF, ItsLassieTime reverted again claiming "CEASE and DESIST! It is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include. L and R are referenced in the article. DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS!"[27] Suffice to say, it all went downhill from there. She continued reverted when two other editors also removed the image, with similar edit summaries, and finally a 3RR was filed against her after she reverted 5 times.[28] User:Master of Puppets gave her a warning for the report and encouraged her to stop. Attempted discussion on the talk page frankly went to hell in a hand basket very quickly.

ItsLassieTime began throwing out slews of personal insults, and when other editors supported the image removal she accused me of sockpuppetry! Things spread around to the Television project talk page, Master of Puppets page (see User talk:Master of Puppets#ItsLassieTime and User talk:Master of Puppets#Lassie Articles), and two AfD pages I had done for the Ruth Martin (television character)[29] and Paul Martin (television character)[30] articles. ItsLassieTime began making false accusations that I was stalking her, acting down right hysterical despite the claims being completely unfounded and, quite frankly, BS. She also began displaying extremely WP:OWN over the Timmy article, reverting almost any edit I made, including edits to bring the article in-line with the MoS claiming she will do her own formats. This also spread to Lassie film articles, including Courage of Lassie in which another heated "discussion" occured at Talk:Courage of Lassie#CEASE AND DESIST!!!!! and Talk:Courage of Lassie#DO NOT!!!!! where she absolutely refused to allow the Film MoS to be applied. She even went back and removed validly sourced edits I'd made to The Painted Hills months ago. She also AfDed some Shakespearean characters in some kind of retaliatory/pointy action because of the two character AfDs I did (no idea why she did those).[31][32]

Master of Puppets gave her some mild warnings and offered to mediate,but nothing was really done and while he was on a wikibreak, things only got worse. User:Cf38 also attempted to mediate, to no avail. I finally got so disgusted with her attacks and the lack of admin intervention that I delisted every Lassie article from my watchlist except the List of Lassie episodes and its season pages, which I had created. This seemed the only way to get away from her attacks and to bring some false of peace to the world. Alas, today she added a template she had created Template:Baby Boomer Toys to Charlotte's Web. Seeing the template, I felt it was not a good template to have, so I removed it from the article and sent it to TfD. Unfortunately, that again opened the floodgates for ItsLassieTime to begin her wild accusations, personal attacks, and outright lies.[33][34]

I let her get away with all this before and just walked away, but frankly I'm tired of her lies, her defamation of my character, and her manner of throwing massive hissy fits to get her way and chase everyone off articles. I'd really like an admin to look at this situation and deal with things accordingly (and before she even says anything, yes I referred to her as a "psychotic-Lassie fan" because of her over the top reactions to this whole thing and out of frustration from her constant personal attacks). She has also claimed in the current TfD that she has no problems with other editors, but her own talk page shows otherwise, if you look back at the comments she's carefully removed so that only the ones she likes remain. She was warned about being too bold in her edits, for making page moves without consensus[35] and for ignoring established consensus on infobox usage[36]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, what a complicated situation. In a ten minute walk through Lassie's contribs, it seems at face value that a few things are apparent. First, I really wish she would use an edit summary once in awhile. Second, overreaction is definitely a trend here, a lot of the time in the guise of complaints and admin-shopping. Third, it's not exactly clear that you are totally unfaulted here either, Collectonian - other people have complained about you recently, also. I am unable to come to a clear course of action. Tan | 39 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I shouldn't have let her goad me into edit warring or responding in kind to her personal attacks (though for me, I did keep my tone down far better than she did). And yes, I get complained about. *shrug* I do a lot of vandal fighting and deal with some contentious issues at times. I can even be abrasive and blunt at times. Now, as far as I know, I haven't been reported to AN/I in a long time, unless I was never notified. As for my talk page, there is ONE dispute on there at the moment, and that was after that editor and another got into an extremely heated back and forth and I, foolishly, asked them both to step back and calm down, so I got attacked for it as well. And, as far as I know, I've never had to resort to lying to attempt to make myself look the victim in any dispute. Either way, that does not mean I have no less right not to deal with such extended and extreme personal attacks repeatedly. If I cross the line, I get warned. I keep crossing it, I would certainly get stronger warnings and maybe a block. She has never really even been warned, but practically indulged and allowed to continue this mess for a lengthy period of time. And now she's taking to calling me "Collie" which would seem to be a sneaky way of calling me something else.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I read about 4 or 5 lines above and I decided not to bother with the rest. Yawn. Collie has a difficult time getting along with people and she's been sneaking around behind me for some time -- ie, reverting my work 2 minutes after I've saved a page that I spent a long time composing, accidentally on purpose creating edit conflicts, following me from one article to the next, nominating for deletion two articles I spent considerable time upon (she was shot down by WP consensus on those), and nasty nasty nasty ... *sigh* It's all so sad. Such a waste of time. So detrimental to WP. Collie can't get along with people. BTW, she has a nasty note about me at the top of her User Page and I wish an admin would remove it and tell her to behave herself. If you notice I have nothing nasty about her on my User Page. I stay away from her but she comes looking for me with an "it's all in the line of WP duties." Good little soldier that she is. I'll let the admins take care of this one. I don't want to get involved. I have enough headaches in my life without all this silly stuff. Maybe I should be banned forever. I don't know. I'm sort of new here and I don't know ALL the back-stage stuff yet. I'd rather go about my editing and trying to do some good work for WP. Is there a way I can hide my "contributions" so she doesn't know where I am or what I'm doing? Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out this "nasty note"? I was unable to locate it. Tan | 39 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already self-edited it.[37] It was the note I mentioned in my initial report, and frankly, considering the pages of insults she's thrown at me, it isn't that hideous (though, of course, I should have bitten my virtual tongue). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tan -- The note is gone. She must have dumped it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to give both editors official warnings to remain civil and to assume good faith in each other. While one side may be more "in the right" than the other, the situation is too complicated and subjective to judge any other way. Also, all either editor would have to do to avoid any further action is simply abide by the warning. However, seeing as I'm the only admin who has taken the time (sigh) to look into both editor's editing history, I'd like to get a second opinion and/or endorsement of this course of action. Tan | 39 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just want her to stay away from me. I notice she's involved in a long long long Arbitration dispute of some sort and I DON'T want to get involved in that sort of thing! When I think of all the time spent on those rebuttals, accusations, evidence, reviews of edit histories, etc. I cringe. All that time could have been used improving articles on WP! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I already walked away from all the Lassie articles. What else do you want. You are the one who edited an article anyone could see I edit on, so you came after me this time. And despite all your "OMG she's stalking me" I've yet to see you produce evidence. Note my report above includes evidence to support my statements. You, however, are incapable of proving that I'm "stalking" you because I'm not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the userid alone, I'd be concerned about WP:OWN by lassie when it comes to Lassie articles. Let's focus on the complaint (and obvious lack of following policy on even minor things like edit summaries) by the SPA. -t BMW c- 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the WP:OWN concern...along with the completely uncivil response to a complaint about their civility..."I read about 4 or 5 lines above and I decided not to bother with the rest. Yawn." Seriously? --Smashville^talk 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• And while we're talking about Courage of Lassie, I'd like all to look at the Revision history of Courage of Lassie. Collie last touched the article 24 April 08. I first touched the article 19 October 08, at which time the article was a stub of three or four sentences (see edit by Otto4711 on 12 Oct 08). Now it gets good: at 4:36 I did at bit of editing and "Saved Page". At 4:38 (all of two minutes later) Collie flew in from out of nowhere to "edit" my work and leave snotty comments in the edit summary! At one point, she created an edit conflict causing me to lose my work. It's an "ownership" stunt on her part, ie, she hasn't touched an article in months, then returns to the article a half year later to claim "ownership" by edit warring and edit conflicting when another editor does a bit of work. Another "ownership" stunt is to revert/delete another editor's good faith work and identify it as vandalism in the edit summary. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point, without even looking at your account history, I can see you're new to Wikipedia. First, Collectonian (I'm not sure if they appreciate your shortening their name to match Lassie's breed) was the SECOND editor of the article after it was created. Many users use the "WATCH" function in order to be notified of changes to "favourite" articles. Your edit would have therefore advised Collectonion of that change, so "flying in" is more of a "hey, something apparently changed...". There appears to have been a significant number of edits and arguments about "trivia" or "unsourced" statements - these do not belong in Wikipedia. Finally, you say you "lost all of your hard work due to an edit conflict." When an edit conflict occurs, you are provided 2 windows: the first has the CURRENT version of the article, and the lower one includes the edits you ATTEMPTED to make. You then have the chance to compare the 2, copy and paste any edits you consider to still be valid into the current article. NONE of your work was lost. May I also add, most of your edits have poor summaries-they need to explain what you did. Many of the edits say "tweak", and are minor...may I remind you of the "Preview" button, that will allow you to see your changes BEFORE you apply them to the article. -t BMW c- 10:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I know Collie was the second editor after the article was created. I learned that after the "edit war" started. But if I'd known that BEFORE I began editing I never would have touched Courage of Lassie. It was a bleak little stub of three or four sentences when I ran across it and I thought at the least I could add an Infobox, a pic, and a bit of material about the film from Ace Collins's Lassie: a Dog's Life. Whew! did I open a can of worms! Anyway .... WP allows "trivia" and "miscellanea" in developing film articles. I pointed that out to Collie some-a-wheres. Anyway it's in the film guidelines. The idea is this: the data will be moved to an appropriate place as the article expands and develops. Besides, my stuff was sourced and I didn't consider it trivia anyway. Who is she to delete some else's date because SHE considers it trivia. Trivia is allowed in developing film articles. I began writing "tweaked" in the edit summary because I believe Collie or another editor was doing somewheres and I copied the style. I use it when I do something simple like rephrase a sentence or two. I don't remember now where I noted it, probably in one of the Lassie articles, several of the articles were deleted. I'm not going back through extensive edit histories to find it. I scan and copy like the editor mentions below but at that particular moment I guess I forget to do so. My bad. I should have known (the article being a Lassie article) that someone else was lurking about. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about your PC, but on mine that feature doesn't work. Therefore, I always do a scan-and-copy of text I've been working on, before hitting "save". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox baby!!! Although it always worked on Internet Exploder too on any PC I used - Dell, HP, Toshiba, eMachines, MyNeighbourBuiltInHisBasement ... -t BMW c- 12:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also works for me on IE 6 on all my comps as well as Firefox. Maybe something to do with the skin you are using? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the default skin, whatever it is. I'll check again the next time I have an edit conflict, and see if the problem still exists or if it works now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I use my epidermis. --Smashville^talk 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be your default skin. Unless you've recently emerged from a burn unit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be Frank. Hi, I'm Frank. Every time you call her "Collie", you are being uncivil. She told you above to stop calling her "Collie". Watchlisting has been explained to you, but considering this is a complaint about your civility and bad faith assumptions, it would be in your best interests in this discussion to actually be civil and not assume bad faith. It's kind of like going into a trial for armed robbery and holding up the jury... --Smashville^talk 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• As mentioned elsewhere I call her Collie to save keystrokes. If I intended to insult her by calling her a dog, it would be spelled with a lower case "C" -- like this: collie. No incivility is intended. I have arthritis and I'm simply saving keystrokes and thus some finger pain. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm calling BS on that. You are calling me it to be insulting. Collie is in no way at all a valid shortening of Collectonian. Not at all. And considering your extremely lengthy, and frequently reedited rants against me, claiming you are trying to save keystrokes doesn't fly. You are deliberately referring to me as a dog despite your being asked (and told) to stop it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So Frank is Jake with you, right? So, listen, Jake - things could be worse: at least nobody brought up the reference to "Lassie" in that landmark comedy classic film Porky's. Until now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Laddie. --Smashville^talk 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Kim Cattrall, who played "Lassie" in Porky's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Another "ownership" stunt is to revert/delete another editor's good faith work and identify it as vandalism in the edit summary." - for the curious, before she edited this, she specifically named the Disney vandal here. Yeah, a well known vandal of three Wikipedia's is "good faith work." Try reading for context before you keep making such false statements. And, as Frank noted, I've asked you repeatedly to stop calling me Collie. Its blatantly obvious you intend it to be insulting and its rather petty of you to keep doing it just because you know it annoys me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, no, no. She pulled the stunt on me several times in the past. She would delete my material two seconds after I posted it and write "reported as VANDALISM" in the edit summary. I don't remember where. Several Lassie articles about individual episodes were deleted. Maybe it was there. I interpreted her actions then as attempt to "scare me off" the article and calim "ownership". VANDALISM is dfasfshagihafgiafgagafghadfughadfughauasdoaoriwotiwgoj and other such nonsense and mischief. Good faith editing is not vandalism. Editing the Lassie articles with Collie perched over them on a minute by minute basis has been absolute H-E-double hockey sticks. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this edit actually is pretty telling. Although, to be frank again...my name's not really Frank... :) --Smashville^talk 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right, another stunt is to go back and edit your original edits on ANI, completely changing the context after other people have already replied. -t BMW c- 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Backing the truck up for a moment ... I just had a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Did I not see a statement by Lassie about an arbitration action involving Collectonian? This is an awfully new user to have understood arbcom rulings, and the timing is just faaarrr to close to the closure of that specific arbcom case. Just sayin... -t BMW c- 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did find it odd that she was talking about it being such a "long drawn out process" (kinda funny too, cause the ArbCom in this case went very quickly). Though, to be fair, it was mentioned on my user page, though she "accidentally" misread it to presume that someone had taken action against me instead of visa versa. I do find it the timing rather interesting, though...and the accusations of me being a stalker in view of what the ArbCom was about...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's especially funny when she (I assume ILT is a she) tries to throw the fact that you've been involved in an ArbCom case against you when you were the one who started the process. It doesn't really feel related to me, though... --Smashville^talk 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the ArbCom case on her User Page preceding a nasty comment she made about me on her page so I checked it out. I think she called me a "psycho-Lassie editor" or something like that. She removed the comment when I "threatened" to bring it to the attention of an admin. How childish -- making snotty little remarks about others on your User Page. I call her Collie to save key strokes, not to diminish her importance. I have arthritis. "Collie" isn't intended as an WP incivility. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to type out every other word in your responses and every word in your accusations against her and make arguments in your bad faith AfD nominations, you can type out her username. We're not naive here. Also, you keep harping back to the "psycho-Lassie editor" comment as if she is trying to hide it...if you would have actually read what she wrote instead of just playing the victim, she admitted to making the edit on this thread in her initial post. --Smashville^talk 20:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did my best to assume good faith in both editors, and having watched this unfold, I'm ready to issue an official warning to ItsLassieTime to cease all personal attacks, veiled or not, against AnmaFinotera. The victimized attitude displayed is misleading at best and outright deceptive at worst. Collectonian is not completely in the clear here, and she herself should steer clear of resorting to any sorts of attacks or edit warring with ItsLassieTime, but at the moment I'm inclined to side with her - as are most non-involved editors and administrators who chimed in above. Any further disruption of Wikipedia in line with the issues above may result in a stronger warning, sanctions, or an outright block. Tan | 39 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this constitutes an acknowledgement of the warning. Tan | 39 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd go one step further. There's no reason to go up the tree here. She should know that incivility and attacks are not tolerated...I have no problem with her trying to work collaboratively with Collectonian, but the next bad faith assumption/attack should warrant a little time away from Wikipedia. After this entire discussion, there'd be no reason to warn again - she's fully aware...and warnings of sterner warnings aren't really a deterrent. --Smashville^talk 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper non-admin closure of AFD

Resolved

 – Request withdrawn. henrik•talk 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Scott MacDonald, having contributed to the AfD debate, expressing a Strong Delete opinion, and with opinions pretty evenly divided has closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Baillie, moved the article to Russell Brand prank calls row, and radically changed the content of the article to be about the event rather than the person. This would appear to be a case of "I have decided that BLP1E applies, and it doesn't matter what others think".

Could an admin revert the page move, and re-open the AfD, to allow it to run its course. Mayalld (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's seriously wonky - the AFD ran for one day and looked to be heading for "no consensus" at that stage --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is now a major UK news story involving the Prime Minister and the BBC. What wikipedia had was a dreadful little bio dreading up tabloid tittle-tattle on the victim, and including dreadful lines like "Quotes purportedly from Baillie in rival tabloid newspapers have both denied[2] and confirmed[3] this claim. [That she'd had sex with Russel Brand]". I'm afraid I took bold bold action in the spirit of BLP, and left us with a far superior article as Russell Brand prank calls row. I also confirm that I am the administrator previously known as Doc glasgow, and perfectly willing to invoke the arbcom's special BLP provisions if required. I apologise if I didn't follow all due process rules.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This girl does not require a Wikipedia article. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any worries with this. Please let me know if I'm missing something, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse, and please note that Doc glasgow is an administrator, regardless of whether he's currently using the non-admin account Scott MacDonald or not. Therefore, he is entitled to and authorised to invoke the Footnoted quotes remedy as any other administrator is. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some policy that I'm not aware of that allows an admin to walk away from his admin account, set up a new account, then suddenly decide that because it's handy to be an admin today, he's an admin again. Right to vanish is one thing, but having vanished, you can't just unvanish on a whim. How is this different from sockpuppetry? Mayalld (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry has to do with undisclosed alternate accounts being used to mislead or skirt a block/ban, which I see no hint of here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. I don't see any hint on the Scott MacDonald page that that user ID is an alternate ID of an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doc (I think?) scrambled his password and stopped using that other account months ago. He was not de-sysoped. He did the move and non-admin close as Scott MacDonald. I think Daniel may have meant that Scott MacDonald still has the experience, knowledge and trust of his admin past, even if he no longer wards the bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Then User:Daniel muddied the waters with his comment. He and MacDonald need to explain themselves. I agree with the move, but they need to explain the user ID situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they do. I don't recall that Doc asked for RTV and he only deleted his user page, which he had done many times before, but left his talk page history for all to see. Again, he did this non-admin AfD close wholly as Scott MacDonald and hasn't edited from his old account in 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

MacDonald and yourself explained anyway. And it was not really an admin action, so User:Daniel kind of sent us astray on this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. I said that he was allowed to use this should he feel the need to (see his initial comment in this thread), as he is an administrator, albeit editing with an alternate (disclosed) account. Daniel (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He was not acting in an Admin capacity, though, so that doesn't seem to be relevant. And where in the MacDonald user page does it "disclose" that he also has an Admin account? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when were radical changes and pagemoves disallowed during AfDs? — Werdna • talk 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The action taken by this user has had the practical net effect of deleting the article that was the subject of an AfD, despite the fact that the AfD had no consensus. Mayalld (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Good thing too. Doc being right lets him out of having dot all the i's and cross all the t's. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted, it was redirected to the new article. So anyone looking for the story using the name of the granddaughter (who is not the story) will be redirected to the prank (which is the story). The move was wholly appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It also good to point out that BLP supersedes AFD. WP:BLP is pretty clear on the point that, in the case of potentially bad biographies, discussion should take place afterwards, rather than before any action is taken. As it is, the article wasn't deleted - it was moved, so... Ale_Jrb^talk 11:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I give up. Clearly others disagree with me (and possibly the AfD would have resulted in the article being deleted in any case). Doesn't mean that I like the way this was done, but I really can't be bothered arguing this one any more. Mayalld (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To clear up the bit about me being an admin, technically I am an admin and was never desysopped. However, I no longer use that account, and haven't particularly either declared or denied the link. Since I'm only using one account, I can't be gaming anything, can I? Actually, in this case it isn't really relevant who I am, as I did nothing that any user can't do. The only reason I mentioned that I technically have admin status is that someone was screaming "non-admin close". On reflection, I can't really see why that matters. If it needs a deletion, then it needs an admin, otherwise any action is either good or bad, the status of the user doing it isn't very relevant.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While the move was appropriate, it could have been handled better. However, the article itself could have been handled better. Some deletionist posted it to AFD, whereas the story was notable enough that deleting the story was inappropriate. So it should have been nominated for a move rather than a delete. Unfortunately, once it went to AFD, (almost) everyone was thinking save-or-delete rather than move. Blinders on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ok to boldly move an article in good faith during an AfD and let's not forget that WP:BLP trumps all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought WP:IAR and the right bower trumped all? -t BMW c- 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case Scott MacDonald trumps all. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes he does :) What's the right bower? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a card. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What an etymology (way down the page). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, it seems to come from "bauer", a peasant, i.e. the "knave". And all those words seem to be kind of connected to each other. English - the verbal virus. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the AfD was closed in a fairly irregular way (by a non-admin account, a user who !voted in the AfD and within only one day of the AfD being opened), I think it would be beneficial if an admin who had not !voted in the AfD adds an endorsing statement for the closure to the AfD page. E.g. one of the admins who have commented above in this thread could do that. This could spare us some problems later, if somebody tries to undo the changes made to the article as a result of the AfD (I had seen something like that happen in at least one other case). Also, it might be a good idea for an admin to look at the history log of the article ans see if a portion of that history log might need to be deleted for BLP reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't need to do any rediculous formalisms. The end result has been agreed as the desired end by WP:CONSENSUS and since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no need to jump through any hoops. The current state of affairs is the consensus desired result, there is no reason for any admin to "add" their approval to a result to make it more "official". Admins don't have any special weight added to their opinions, and there is no impending need to leave any note that would imply otherwise... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Will this AFD ever be cited as an example of allowed procedure? Probably never, but an administrator endorsement has value for future readers. Unnecessary process wonkery is reverting the closure. 20:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of banned users

This [38] is nasty personal attacks and trolling at best, and probably implicit blackmail. Why on earth is this guy allowed to post to a talk page? I'm not going to even mention his name, but can someone blank and protect this, then we can forget he exists.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was actually about to ask for a similar thing. Is there a reason not to protect his talk page? --Conti|✉ 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Going further, is there any reason not to delete that talk page?--Jac16888 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think blanking should be enough. --Conti|✉ 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is enough. Can someone do it?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object, I've gone ahead and blanked the page. --Conti|✉ 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

William S. Burroughs

Trouble at the William S. Burroughs page has led one editor to rampage see attack on [39]and see my talk page edits [40] by User:72.154.191.175. CU on editor responsible for this diff [41] might be wise as this is the content that is being continuously added against other editors wishes. See also [42]. I note an older block on user here [43] Opiumjones 23 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted a warning on the IP's user page. If he does this again, you should post another warning. Then if he does it again right away, go to WP:AIV and ask for help. That's the game you have to play with these IP's, unless you find an admin willing to block on-sight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See also [44] Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

There's an anon user 66.192.195.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edit warring on a number of articles. I believe this is Hetoum I (talk · contribs) evading the arbcom imposed parole. The anon edit warring on the article Sisak (eponym), removing the same referenced info as 216.165.12.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is a sock of User:Bursteam (see user page of IP and his block log: [45]), a known sock of Hetoum I. Urgent attention of admins is required. Grandmaster (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CU  Confirmed Bursteam (talk · contribs) = 216.165.12.126 (talk · contribs)

 Likely Bursteam (talk · contribs) = 66.192.195.193 (talk · contribs), Jehochman has already blocked this IP for 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good faith linkspammer

After deleting a blog link from a music-related article, I went through the submissions of contributions (who added it) and noticed that his contributions are almost 100% adding links to the blog of one "Dr. Avior Byron". The username and blog owner indicate the same person. I left a couple warnings on his talk page.

Well, he left a polite reply on my talk page defending his actions, so I looked over his most recent edit. To my surprise, the article Pierrot Lunaire#References contains not only a link to his blog, but also a link to an academic journal article he wrote.

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says to avoid links to blogs except those written by a recognized authority. And looking over his blog and his published article, this fellow may indeed be a recognized authority in the field of musicology, and linkspamming his blog all over Wikipedia's musicology-related articles may actually be enhancing the articles.

Any advice? Should I just leave him be? There aren't any clear guidelines. On one hand, he's got a conflict of interest and doesn't contribute much but his links. On the other hand, if he's an authority on the subject, and he happens to run a blog, then the links may be OK. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I run into this all the time, and always handle it the same way: revert all the links and give a warning. If the user asks questions, give a brief friendly explanation of the policy, and say that the only acceptable way to add an unusual link is to discuss it on the talk page of the article first and get consensus. If the user puts back the links, come here and ask for a block. (You can look at User talk:Bishopclinics for the most recent case I've dealt with.) Looie496 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the Lunaire link is fine, since he actually does look to be somewhat educated on the subject. However, I believe that the addition of the links to such broad topics as Graduate school, Book review, European Research Council and Postgraduate education should be avoided. --Smashville^talk 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought too. I'll leave the musicology-related links alone, but revert and warn for the others. He's up to level 3 warnings now. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If this fellow seems to be an expert in his field, you may want to advise him (gently and politely) to start contributing content rather than just links to articles. Maybe point him towards a relevant wikiproject. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Miranda

Resolved

 – User:Crazyaboutlost blocked a week for edit warring

One of the lamer edit wars now centers on this well-known Brazilian (though Portuguese-born) singer/entertainer, who one user insists as identifying as strictly Portuguese. [46] Yes, this looks like a content dispute, except the one user, User:Crazyaboutlost, who keeps pushing this view is violating consensus of several users and hence is being disruptive. He hasn't quite broken 3RR yet - today. He was suspended previously for so doing. His edits in general, judging by his history [47] tend to be contentious. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he's violated 3RR, and I'm right at it, so I'm done reverting. I believe his efforts to be vandalism, but others might not agree, so that's as far as I can go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, because earlier, he did the exact same thing on the exact same article and earned a previous block that expired only a day or two ago. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Muito obrigado! Someone needs to look at his other shenanigans. His user page suggests he's very pro-Portuguese, and he may just be trying to identify anything remotely Portuguese as being definitively Portuguese. But his approach is over the line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Big fat support. --Smashville^talk 21:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well-done. Opinoso (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to add the block template, just for safety...--Smashville^talk 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on people. I only added information. He was the one who was removing. I only added that she was portuguese (since she was born in Portugal and never got double citizenship neither brazilian citizenship). I did not remove any part of the article.201.10.36.228 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey-hey! Something else to block. Who wants it? I'm not an admin or I would do it myself. But I'm just a pawn in the game of life. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I win! But seriously...3RR is pretty straightforward. More than 3 is a block. Not that difficult a concept --Smashville^talk 21:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I could have taken him to 3RR, but this seemed to go beyond routine 3RR's. He's basically arguing for giving a technicality undue weight, against consensus. The article already states, in the very next sentence, that she was born in Portugal. However, she was known as the Brazilian Bombshell. Hence she was a Brazilian entertainer, not a Portuguese entertainer. Now I think I'll go watch Slick Hare, with its Carmen Miranda cameo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No Porky's? --Smashville^talk 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just Porky and Daffy. Alas, Kim Cattrall never appeared in a WB cartoon. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I poked an admin on IRC, and the IPs blocked as well. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Extremely high level of vandalism now

Resolved

 – vandalism back down to reasonable levels. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We are averaging around 30 reverts per minute. Any help would be appreciated. If you have rollback or are an admin, and have heard of Huggle, but haven't tried it, now would be a good time to start. Thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where? 30 reverts per minute? That's what I'd call a good day. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. It's down to around 20 or so now. Thanks to everyone who got on to help deal with it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

need block of POV-pushing static IP

Can't bring to AIV because I always catch him when 24 hours have passed. (19 in this case)

71.59.26.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Matilda gave him a level 4 warning on 14 October for removing anything related to India (Hindu translations, references to Vedra, etc) and adding stuff that makes Afganisthan/Pakistan look more important than warranted, including modifying sources. He made POV edits again on 18 October, but AIV report was rejected as stale[48], so I gave him another level 4 warning on 24 October. Now he has made POV edits again on the following day after the level 4 warning on 25 October (falsifying the title of a source among other things[49]) and now again 27 October. He has done edits on October on 11 different days, and makes POV edits every time, last time he removed the hindu translation of an article about a frigging cheese[50] and then unlinked them from another article[51] (presumibly because it's an indian cheese), while modifying the article so it looks like Pashtun only ever had influences from Arabic with none of those pesky influence from indians and stuff.

It would be pointless to give a third level 4 warning, since it's obviously the same person and has not engaged on anysort of explanation or justification.

Please block for a few days, as he will surely return in 2-3 days. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Blocked for one week. Tan | 39 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm going back through some contributions of him that I left for good, and it's turning out that even the most innocent-looking changes [52] (a removal of an alternative name) were POV-pushing. And people are still fixing some of his changes that I didn't notice [53]. I hate it when people introduce subtle POV pushing. It's a real pain to check stuff that I have no idea about. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally nailed the last one: claiming on August that Sinbad the Sailor was from Pakistan[54]. I can't believe he edited for two months before he got his first warning :( --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar used as personal attack

Resolved

 – offending attack removed, offending user has left--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m concerned about this barnstar placed on the talk page of Crossthets (talk · contribs) by Walnutjk (talk · contribs), which seems to be a thinly-veiled attack on admin Future Perfect at Sunrise, referring to him as a “certain all knowing administrator” and his contributions and efforts to maintain neutrality as ”propaganda,” “nationalistic views”, and the reason “Wikipedia is crap.” I would like to see it removed, and I think some sort of warning is in order. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I became aware of the issue via this thread at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much action to be taken here. If CrossthetsFuture Perfect (the presumed target, per the WP:Greece thread) is personally slighted by this to the level of wanting admin action, he/she can bring it up here themselves. Tan | 39 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin action here might cause more drama than it solves; that said, this sort of thing shouldn't continue. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually says "certain administrators and their collaborators"- it doesn't name names and is just the sort of thing seen on many barnstars, sadly:) Sticky Parkin 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, in any case. Luna Santin, I think you are correct about admin action causing more drama than it's worth, but the whole thing seemed very mean-spirited and was disappointing to see. Thnaks anyway, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very clearly directed at me, and it is part of an ongoing persistent pattern of harassment directed against me by Crossthets and now aided and encouraged by Walnutjk, so yes, I would appreciate admin action. This is only a small part of a pattern that has reached a stage where bans are needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the barnstar box as a blatant personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Offending user has apparently decided that (s)he is too good for Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am too ... but I still stick around :-) -t BMW c- 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about "certain [unnamed] admins and their [unnamed] collaborators" reminds me of one of the songs from The Mikado - "... what'cha-call-it, thing-a-me-bob ... and tut-tut-tut, and what's-his-name, and also you-know-who ... the task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you ..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those mean admins, wrecking all that nationalistic fun. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Can 85.73.224.212 (talk · contribs) be blocked, as well as Walnutjk (talk · contribs), now that he's unretired to use IPs. Grsz^Review! 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Walnutjk has already been blocked, as for 85.73.224.212 I've done the deed, blatant, ongoing personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can get banned for linking a well-sourced Wikipedia Article? WTH?!

The page Anonymous (internet culture) has this message embedded in the KTTV Fox 11 section:

<!--DO NOT mention any names of living individuals unless they were EXPLICITLY stated in the Fox 11 report. Any user who adds the individual's name may be blocked. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons-->

Now if i'm not mistaken, the Jake Brahm article has enough reasonable references (even copies of the court documents from The Smoking Gun) and his mugshot was used in the news segment, even thought he wasn't identified. To me, I have enough justification to link the article (my intent is to like thus: "bomb sports stadiums") and i'm not violating the rules outlined in Wikipedia Biography, because, I can reference the news articles and the court documents, which satisfies Wikipedia: Citing Sources. So what's compelling someone to write this "threat" down in the first place?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Because plenty of people were adding it because they thought it was cool, because other channers were doing it, or a number of other reasons that don't come from building a good encyclopedia. Most of those 4chan/anon articles have to be policed pretty heavily because they aren't important enough to be on hundreds of watchlists but bad faith/silly changes get past NPP (because it isn't obvious vandalism). Comments in articles help let people know that someone is paying attention. Edit notices help sometimes too. If you are making a good faith addition, I wouldn't worry about the admonition there. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest asking on the talk page of the article before taking action, though. Looie496 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Looie. This should probably be fine but discussing it on the talk page is probably a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit for now; while it seems valid, the suggestion here is to discuss on the article's talk page first and there has been no discussion. (As well, the link probably should not be "hidden" in that manner. That is just a matter of reformatting, however.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary and arrogance of American-based FRANK.

I am sick and tired from arbitrary some self-proclaimed censors demonstrate on Wiki pages.

As understood, “Frank” had deleted my article of modern internationally accepted innovator, engineer and publicist Michael Kerjman whose input in world progress is surely not less substantial than those of “Frank Lorenzo”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lorenzo

Perhaps, a CEO of NY local airline tries to avoid possibility public worldwide to realise unaccountability of American carriers as provided with http://mkwrk2.livejournal.com

Moreover, my assesses to Wiki and Yahoo!Mail were blocked since my publication appeared unsuitable to this Newyorker.

Thank you for your ultimate attention to such a McCartney-style deeds.

A.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.68.59 (talk • contribs)

Huh? I understand none of this. You need to explain better what the problem is and what administrator intervention is required...I'm not going to go to your blog to figure that out. — Scientizzle 01:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And vandalism is not going to help your cause, whatever it is... — Scientizzle 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

'McCartney-style deeds'? I doubt that Macca goes in for that sort of thing. Now your hard-core Lennonist, on the other hand... --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to the IP address. He just paid a visit to Gibberish-R-Us.com. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the anonymous IP is referring to Kerjman, created by A2325 (talk · contribs) and deleted by Frank (talk · contribs). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

checked that article. brief bio about a Russian inventor with very little published work. Deleted as G11,promotional, which is fairly vague criterion. But I doubt it will be overturned, because there is no chance whatsoever that the material included would conceivably show him meeting the Wikipedia standards for an article based on his work, via BIO, or PROF or any other criterion. No reason for blocking someone submitting it, but I see no block on the account A2325 or the ip listed. DGG (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ValeriyD and Russian movies commercial spam

{{resolved}} User ValeriyD (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) appears only to insert links to russian-dvds.com (a purely commercial site) into various articles on Russian films. I have posted a notice on spam noticeboard, but haven't warned the user as I don't know the correct procedure. Will someone more knowledgeable please review this -- 131.111.223.43 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Seidenstud issued a warning and no further spamming has been seen. I'm marking it resolved until we see otherwise. JodyB _talk 12:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He aded his link once again - I've slapped him with level 3 warning. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yoelmo (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – _Gb^T/c 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yoelmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has succeeded in creating two fake album articles in the course of a few days of editing. He recreated Autumn Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which MSoldi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for. He has now created Fearless (Ali Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and AliPersonal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which are near copies of Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I believe was also an MSoldi hoax, and has been repeatedly recreated and salted. Can someone let me know the creator(s) of Interpersonal so I can open a sockpuppeting or checkuser case? Or you can feel free to shout "QUACK" and block if you think it's appropriate after looking at the history.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please? Would someone just tell me who created the various versions of Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I'll do the hard parts of matching contribution histories and such.—Kww(talk) 12:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Ohmygod1234 (talk · contribs) was responsible for the original incarnation between 10 Sep and 11 Sep, and the last edit before its first deletion was by Heyheyi'moutboy (talk · contribs) on 16 Sep, who then recreated it the next day (when it was deleted again). Final version was created by LucasHaider (talk · contribs) on 20 Sep before being deleted an hour later. _Gb^T/c 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#MSoldi has been filed.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Forryga and User:TrueForryga

Resolved

 – Both accounts have been indef blocked for disruption/vandalism. Jamie^☆S93 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like it falls between WP:UAA and WP:RFCN, and it involves potential issues (the similarities in the usernames is obvious), so I am bringing this to admins' attention here (per the instructions at WP:RFCN). Also, I do not want to make any hasty judgments. The latter is claiming "forgery" of the former username. MuZemike (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts could probably be indefinitely blocked. First one is a vandalism only account, second one is a troll. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, nothing helpful about either account. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from Wolfberry man

Resolved

 – Not a legal threat, --Tznkai (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

}

I've just received by Wiki e-mail what could be read as a legal threat from Paul144 (talk · contribs).

This concerns discussion at WP:COIN#Wolfberry re the COI of Paul144 (talk · contribs) linking to his own book and articles. Paul144 is a.k.a. the "Berry Doctor", who founded a company selling berry-based nutraceuticals [55] and has written a book about wolfberries (see official site with its copious commercial links) co-authored with the head honchos of Rich Nature, a prominent vendor of berry nutraceuticals, and produced by that company.

But he's objecting to my opinion, based on the above background, that his work is commercial!

Here's the relevant section:

However, what is objectionable in your posts -- by Wiki criteria -- Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting of personal information is personal listing of names of the Zhangs and me in a way that could be interpreted negatively as if their business and I are not reliable sources.

I am a consultant so reputation matters. The Zhangs' business is of course important to them.

These sections below are violations of Wikipedia rules on harassment, and I ask you to remove them or I will have to take the matter to administration. (my bold)

"We can start by calling bullshit on that? A quick Google finds the book was produced by Rich Nature Nutraceutical Laboratories, which sells wolfberries and wolfberry products (here's their press release) and is copiously linked from the book's official site wolfberry.org. The two other co-authors, Richard Zhang and Xiaoping Zhang are the founders of Rich Nature."

and

"We can also call bullshit on the idea that Paul Gross is just some disinterested academic/freelancer who fancied a commission to write a book on wolfberries. Whatever his other credentials, his job is promoting berries as nutraceuticals, as the Berry Doctor, via promotional articles at NPIcenter ("the leading global online information resource for professionals in the Nutraceutical, nutritional, dietary supplement, cosmetic, and food industries"), and as founder of Berry Wise Inc, which sells berry-based nutraceuticals."

FYI, I have never been employed for any purpose regarding berries. My intent with my writing is purely educational and my reward is to volunteer independent literature in an industry where misinformation and fraud are prevalent. I donate my time to write about berries because I think they are an interesting scientific topic and valuable food source. There are no commercial motivations to what I write. I know this is evident from the content of those articles.

Paul

Contrary to the e-mail, I haven't "outed" him; he has self-identified twice on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:COIN#Wolfberry).

I'm happy to go with consensus on this, but I'm not happy with this kind of threat from someone with clear commercial connections to a topic who has repeatedly linked to his own promotional articles. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go way, way, way, waaaaaaaay out on a limb here and assume that the "administration" he refers to in the same sentence that he mentions Wikipedia is...Wikipedia:Administrators. John Reaves 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I get the same read. Not a legal threat at all. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how on earth that can be construed as a legal threat. On the contrary, the plain meaning is that he is accusing you of violating WP policies, and threatening to take it up with the WP administrators. Which is exactly what someone should do if they believe someone else is violating policy. (Whether his accusations have any substance is beside the point.) -- Zsero (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's generally considered a no-no to post a private e-mail on-wiki. John Reaves 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. But when they're used as a form of harassment - to affect content and discussion by threats behind the scenes - I take that privacy as waived. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this does not sound like a legal threat but a statement of intent to use the mechanisms internal to Wikipedia. Mishlai (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK - this could be a regional difference, but in the UK (where I am) "take to administration" can mean "take to legal procedings". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IP requests block?

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 year for reasons unrelated to block request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

147.72.126.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) After a short spree of vandalism (which terminated as soon as a final warning was issued), the IP actually requested to be blocked as a school IP. Is this something we'd oblige? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but their network administrator (or someone else in charge) should contact OTRS with the request. —Travis^talk 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't wontedly block editors by their own request. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Even with no request, it should've been blocked, which it is now. Spellcast (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's software they can get which blocks editing Wikipedia. They could simply add "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=*&action=edit*" to their local URL blocklist, or however it is they block websites. Just a thought. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As if I mind the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

69.117.205.213

Resolved

 – 1 week anon block. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's latest edit summary: go back to the ovens you fucking kikes (and the blanking of Who is a Jew?). The user's talk page reveals a lot of blocking notices but also the need for a new block, I'd think, due to the extreme offensive nature of the hate. I understand it is an IP, but something needs to be done. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Need Some Admin Input

Resolved

 – Sour grapes: we don't want that image after all. — Coren ^(talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am having a bit of trouble with an image and it's true ownership. The image is question is Image:OSS-seal.JPG, the seal for the Office of Strategic Services (the organization before the CIA was founded). According to User:Lucasbfr, there is a trademark by the OSS Society of McLean on the image (USPTO# 78641357) and an OTRS ticket claiming so (OTRS# 2007122210004268). Now, I gave the OSS Society a call (number: 703-356-6667 if one would like to call and confirm) and the lady I spoke to said the image could not be copyrighted as it was public domain.

This is where my confusion comes in. Who is right? Is it public domain or is it copyright? It would be silly for a group to have a copyrighted image and claim it was public domain. I ask for some admin input. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 19:52

Looking into it now. Please stand by. — Coren ^(talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Any work created by a US government employee in the course of official duties is automatically in the public domain, and cannot be copyrighted. But the explanation of why the image was removed doesn't talk about copyright, it says the seal is trademarked, which is a different thing, and I don't know the rules about that. Looie496 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've seen your message but couldn't reply before you posted here (I'm still trying to gather information on this). I am not sure this is something that can be resolved on this forum, though. I'm probably going to email Mike Godwin about this, but the logo is indeed trademarked. Now, whether or not it is public domain (I'd say because it is the work of a US Federal agency, not because it is old) is an other matter. Considering that the image was being used as a Fair Use picture, and that there is a clear statement from someone owning the trademark, and claiming that this is not a US government work, that we are infringing their Intellectual Property we ought to err on the safe side (as a host). If there is proof the image is PD, and if can confirm that we can use the image in this context, it might be restored but IANAL (and I'm not sure this is worth the fight). -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that (a) the image is subject to a live trademark [56] and that (b) someone purporting to be Charles Pinck, the President of the OSS Society (who owns the trademark) has requested in ticket 2007122210004268, repeatedly, that it be removed from Wikipedia.

There is still a legitimate question about the origin of the email (AOL address), but at least provisionally, we must consider it legitimate. I'm going to be attempting to contact the OSS Society directly to make certain the email is legitimate, but that cannot be done now and we must proceed presuming that it is. — Coren ^(talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed the email address with a tad of googling :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've still offered a phone call, I'll use the opportunity to discuss a valid release of the image instead of simply cutting off bridges.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, the straight dope after talking directly with the OSSS president: this whole mess is a big misunderstanding.  :-) (a) They will favorably consider giving us permission to use the Trademark (it would need to be a board permission) if we ask nice. (b) We probably don't want to use the Trademark at all: it never was used as a logo of the actual OSS, but created ex post facto after the war by vets! (The CIA site has it erroneously and the OSSS has already asked them to remove it). According to Mr Pinck, the OSS never had an official logo at all (he would have been glad to point one out to us if there was). — Coren ^(talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's what an other email of his asserted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand, there isn't an image/logo for the OSS at all? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 21:01

That's correct, not while it existed. It was created after the OSS was split/replaced by the CIA by veterans. — Coren ^(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie....that clears up that massive confusion. Sorry for uploading the image again, I thought it was public domain. My mistake and my apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 30, 2008 @ 21:41

Legal threat from User:Tswenson

Resolved

 – 24 hour block issued, rather than indef, since they removed the threat. Unblocked since the threat was removed per WP:NLT. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Diff. They quickly removed it; but the principle remains I guess. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of our no legal threat policy is to prevent intimidation. Obviously a removed threat isn't a threat at all. No way should this person be blocked. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hope the Communications Department could spell better, especially when it comes to their own name. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• (ec x 4) This IMHO was an unwarranted block, as the legal representative Young Life Service Center trying to get there copyrighted photo removed they are of course going to use legal terminology. The message was in no way disruptive, they were simply trying to get their picture removed. We cannot hold it against them that they do not know Wikipedia policies; the correct response would have been to provide them a link to a suitable venue to get the picture removed and tell them that we will work with them and that by Wikipedias guidelines legal threats are heavily discouraged. Icewedge (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec, agreed with above)We could also point them to the appropriate venue for that kind of things instead of clicking on the OMG button. They are not intimidating other users (which is the point of WP:LEGAL) and may be right... -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems I was in the wrong in issuing a block here per WP:NLT. I've unblocked the user and left an explanation and apology on their talk page. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Theresa Knott | token threats 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you indeed :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my misinterpretation of the policy and mistake that resulted from it! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin Gwen Gale abusing admin tools

Resolved

 – Gwen Gale did nothing to abuse her admin tools. RedSpruce has retired from editing, or is at least blocked for 72 hours. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale is abusing her admin powers by threatening to block me over a legitimate content dispute. As can be seen at User talk:Gwen Gale#RedSpruce, she is also refusing to engage in any rational discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No comment on anything else at this point, but it's well-established that a threat to block does not constitute the use of admin tools. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you tried to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the content dispute with Richard Arthur Norton anywhere? —kurykh 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No admin tools have been used yet. It appears to me that Gwen has threatened a block to stop an edit war. —Travis^talk 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be thinking of some other users, but haven't RedSpruce and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) been at each other's necks for a long time? I seem to recall seeing their rivalry on other boards here in the past year or so. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "legitimate content dispute", its pointy behavior. RedSpruce visits certain articles once a month and removes content in lieu (or in same cases in spite of) dispute resolution. Since his stated goal is to wait until other editors aren't watching so he can sneak his changes in [57] and since he's been blocked multiple times for similar behavior, I'd say Gwen in on the right track here. Shell ^babelfish 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If somebody is edit warring over content, it is not abuse for an admin to state "I will block you if you carry on deleting verifiable content".[58] No admin abuse here, only questionable edits by RedSpruce. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, an improper threat to block constitutes an abuse of admin tools, and there is no edit war involved here. And User:Shell_Kinney's characterization of events is incorrect.RedSpruce (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes but the question is - was it an improper threat? You can be blocked for more than just edit warring, we can, and do block for disruption all the time. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notifying you that if you continue making the same types of edits that you will be blocked is not an abuse of administrative tools, especially when the edits are disruptive, so please stop claiming that. After having reviewed the situation I think that I would pretty-much completely agree with Shell Kinney's assessment. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should we allow this disruptive gaming the rules to continue? Is RedSpruce ready to stop behaving disruptively, or are external controls needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that RedSpruce does not even understand why his edits are disruptive and gaming the system, so I highly doubt he's ready to stop behaving that way. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. My warning stands, if you delete verifiable content from the encyclopedia (moreover clarifying quotes in footnotes), I'll block you. I care not a wit about the dispute and am wholly uninvolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Knock it off, RedSpruce, or I'll block you myself. Tan | 39 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, isn't anyone here interested in addressing the actual issues? If I'm behaving disruptively here, kindly explain how. If this isn't a valid content dispute, kindly explain why it isn't. Anything else is just ad hominem personal attacks. RedSpruce (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We did address the issue, which was if Gwen Gale was "abusing the admin tools". She was not. We then focused on you, as is permissible and usual on this board. We found that you were engaging in disruptive editing. It's not a content dispute because there's no discussion whatsoever regarding the "disputed content". Does that help? —kurykh 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have been removing well-sourced, verifiable content from articles without engaging in discussion or so much as using an edit summary. That is disruptive. Also, please read WP:AGF and try to understand why accusing administrators and other editors of personal attacks, etc. when there are none is not tolerated. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya RedSpruce, please chill and see WP:V. Most readers are smarter than you may think, even those whose lips move whilst they sound it out some might even startle you now and then. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's not tolerated (most of us should be used to it by now), but that it's not a particularly effective way of convincing people. —kurykh 19:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 3) It is a content dispute which you are handling poorly by slow edit warring. When the dispute spills into the mainspace, where text is added to and removed from articles, its an edit war and any uninvolved admin has the right to block any user who is engaged in such behavior, in order to stop the edit war. Gwen left an appropriate warning on the issue, which basically said "stop the disruption or risk being blocked". I would say there is no probelm at all with what she did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We said knock it off. He didn't. I blocked for 72 hours. See prior block log. Tan | 39 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requested (sort of) and declined. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And now he has apparently decided to retire from editing. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, here's some fun reading for y'all: [59]. This issue has been beat into the ground already. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So he's been 'cut down to size'? See, his name is 'Red Spruce' and so I...I'll just go sit in the corner, shall I? HalfShadow 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Thanks for the diff, Jayron :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange Socking

• Mingusyeal (talk · contribs)
• Mingushead000 (talk · contribs)
• Jackerdacrakka (talk · contribs)
• User:Minguemeringue (talk · contribs)
• 12.179.223.85 (talk · contribs)

I've been monitoring this for a few days now, and thought it was time to bring it here. The userpage of indef blocked User:Mingushead000, was attracting a fair amount of odd edits, in particular that the x picture was changed to this one Image:Index finger.JPG several times. I deleted the page since it no longer served any purpose, MingusHead was blocked for vandalism, and for attacking User:Mingusyeal. MingusHeads page was often attacked by this user, who i also indef'd since they were clearly not trying to help the project, and who seemed to be under the impression they were a sysop. MingusHead's talk page also got replaced with "I'm a meringue", [60], by User:Jackerdacrakka, who also made this very stange monobook, User:Jackerdacrakka/monobook.js. Also brought to my attention was User:User:Minguemeringue, not yet blocked, meringue and mingu seem to much of a co-incidence to me, especially considering this, Template:WarChallenge, a template inviting an edit war with another user, and virtually identical to Template:EditWarChallenge created by Mingushead. This all seems very strange, and i would appreciate some outside input thing. One more thing, that also set my spidey sense tingling, are those two edits by the apparent subject of the attacks, this, [61] very similar in style to jackers monobook edit, and this, [62], adding the same picture to their userpage which kept being added to MingusHead's.--Jac16888 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Caspian blue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Both of you (Bukubku and Caspian blue) need to keep your fighting off Wikipedia. This constant bickering and accusing each other of wrongdoing is disruptive. This discussion is closed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps anti-Japanese racial attacking, see as below examples.

• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intentionally falsely citated the source and racial attacked. He appealed only Japanese called Empress Myeongseong as Queen Min from falsely citation.[63] Then I rightened his propaganda.[64]
• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intentionally deleted citated sentences "He involved in the assassination of Queen" from Official Gazzete of Korea. Then he revised intentionally "The Japanese government was allegedly involved in the assassination of Empress Myeongseong, who had carried out policies against the Japanese, and, although there are controversial viewpoints on the subject, it is apparent that the Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans.". This source recorded that Korean King Gojong testified Woo Beom-seon (禹範善) was the criminal and ordered cut his head off. But he intentionally converted the citation from "He involved in the assassination of Queen" to "it is apparent that the Japanese government attempted to divert the blame to the Koreans". He deleted even {{fact}}. These {{fact}} pasted sentences suspicious Japanese racism. And he deleted "<"references /">", his intention was no one could read the source[65]
• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intentionally deleted again.[66]
• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intentionally deleted Korean King's testify again. Moreover he intentionally added several none cited Japanese Racizm. One example is apparently not, he intentionally deleted "Then Japan was also ruled by the United States." and add "The policy was aiming to hinder Koreans from obtaining technological knowledge and to profit from selling the seeds to Koreans at a high price.". However Japan is under the United States rule at that time, so Japan has no their own policy.[67]
• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) intentionally deleted and racial attacked again.[68]

Then I appealed Administrators, Administrators recommend us go to Wikipedia:Mediation. So I sent a message for him, I said him to go to Meditation. But he refuged and he told me talking in Talk page. Who can belive this shameless man's words. Furthermore, He said that much of contents was written by Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It do not make sense, he deleted {{fact}} and "<"references /">" and add deleted Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s articles.

Please expel this shameless man. See his contributions, he harassed Japanese countless times.

Suspicious socks puppets:

• Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Appletrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users are fond of editing Korean Culture and Anti-Japanese articles.

--Bukubku (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I suffering déjà vu, or have we done this before? Regardless, I left a note [69] for the party mentioned. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, déjà vu, is here. Same old song on the long-running Japan-Korea saga, one of wiki's long running ethnic wars. Bukubku's alleged socking by Caspian Blue, well let's see, Appltrees was his old account before he was RENAMED to Caspian Blue by a crat. This is NOT socking. Appleby's last edit was over two years ago, so these edits are WAY STALE, and Wikimachine has only made one edit all year. This is a very weak socking claim and I'm not even going to look at it. As for the other claims, been there, heard that before, ie, déjà vu. So, and as I've said before, these guys need to go to meditation since they can't work this out on their own. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse. You read my message. I'm sorry, I annoyed you frequently. We need third persons.--Bukubku (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser's attention needed and newbie User:Bukubku's harassment

The above report would be déjà vu just as Kralizec!'s comment. Please reference to these above reports by sockpuppeters (they were all indef. blocked) associated with 2channel and stalking site http://www3.atwiki.jp/apple-tree/ *filed by Jazz81089 (indef.blocked)

• filed by Opoona (indef.blocked)

I sense that same pattern here as well. Besides, the stalking site recorded my converstation with other users, and I think Bukubku is the operater of the site.

This report on 2channel's disruption is why Bukubku (talk · contribs) antagonizes me and calls me "vandal". (what a pathetic gesture).

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive380#Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opoona

As the newbie who knows about and analysizes me too much and Wiki knowledges unlike his registered date (one and half month old) is falsey accusing me, the user harrasses me with the hoax report. The user was warned for his falsifications on Empress Myeongseong by several admins. Morever, Appletrees is my "former screen name", and I wonder how this newbie found out this. I changed my name via WP:CHU, and this attempt is even nothing new. Other accounts have nothng to do with me and the 2channel people know it, but try to link me with others, so that they try to gain attenton with their hoax report. I don't insert any wrong info to articles, but Bukubku did. Admin Kwami would confirm this. Bukubku has refused to provide his rationales for massive deletions on mentioned articles, and refused to come to talk page. Moreover, he also lies about my suggestion to him to open a discussion.[70] If the Bukubku is a sock of indef.blocked users (I believe the user is highly likely) found on the RFCUs, well a block is quite in order again. I also think that this user is either a sock of Pabopa (talk · contribs), or Opoona (talk · contribs), Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) who made above hoax ANI reports.--Caspian blue 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, you are my No.1 teacher. Your edtion teach me lot. And you inform me your helpful fan sites.[71] I appreciate to Admin Kwami as third person even if things going to bad for me.--Bukubku (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the same as the stalking site. So you're admitting the operator of the shameless site? :) Your falsification is nothing new at all since you have done so many times, and make this hoax report. --12:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Looks like a He-who-shall-not-be-named bombing is starting up.

Ladies and gentlemen, have your rollbacks ready. HalfShadow 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy or one of his many castratos; my guess is the former due to the title. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about 76.185.232.165

Resolved

 – IP blocked.Kralizec! (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User at 76.185.232.165 (talk · contribs) seems to be adding various {sport}Xpert links to a number of sites. I see nothing on these sites by advertising. Could an admin look into this person's edits and determine if WP:ADERTISING is being broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjquin id (talk • contribs) 05:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All necessary warnings added. This really is a spamlink only account so far. MarnetteD | Talk 06:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Annoying User

A user called DyingxToxLivexAgain wrote annoying messages on my talk page, he did this twice in the past couple of weeks. So is there a way that's wiki-legal to get this guy under control? By the way, I've deleted his first message already.

Eisenhower 23:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Warn the user, and if he persists, report the user to the vandalism noticeboard. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Have warned him. He's got one chance to stop it, although this, [72], suggests he won't.--Jac16888 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I appreciate it. Eisenhower 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked that account, because there's a real editor on the receiving end of this, and since we routinely block confirmed vandalism-only accounts, I see no reason not to block a self-confessed harassment-only account. I'm happy for an admin to accept any unblock request that seems reasonable. Of course, if consensus here is that I'm being draconian, please go ahead and reverse the block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a vandalism-only account. If it were me that had cross paths with him, I would have taken him straight to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closing requested move discussion he participated in

Would someone care to have a word with User:ww2censor regarding his (early, although it was a WP:SNOW situation) closure of the requested move on Talk:Counties of Ireland, a discussion which he participated in? I'd usually do it myself, but as I've just been involved in a contentious debate with some fairly unpleasant Irish nationalists, I'd rather not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell no! Why? You said yourself it was a snow situation. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious debates like that need closed, since the result is crystal clear, it matters not by whom. Slapping people for perceived procedural irregularities when eh result is good and uncontroversial is not the wiki-way.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it was an obvious no-no, regardless of the way the debate is heading (this is certainly what WP:DPR#NAC and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures seem to suggest). If it's acceptable, I stand corrected. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Those guidelines are there to stop contention, but if the close result is not going to be contentious, they can be ignored. Results (particularly if uncontentious) are always more important than process. But, it is fine that you asked, and I'm sorry if the reply sounded like a slap-down. Asking is good, it is how we learn.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And getting a sneaky dig in about "unpleasant Irish nationalists" is petty spite too, and also not the wiki way. It seems anyone who disagrees with you is therefore unpleasant, and an Irish nationalist. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by Everyme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No good will come of continuing this discussion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I really hate to do this. I'm pretty thick skinned, and generally detest people coming here to complain of incivility or personal attacks. But completely unprovoked remarks about me by Everyme (talk · contribs) have left me speechless. I'm not going to say more, to resist poisoning the well, but I'd very much appreciate some admins to examining this comment and then this thread, and take whatever action seems good to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I tried to resolve this situation, unsuccessfully. See my comments here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful to L'Aquatique for her attempts. Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to get it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that Everyme has been made aware of this discussion, can I summise the concern is that Everyme has offended Scott MacDonald's sensibilities by inferring that an good faith difference of opinion by SM has been termed "intellectual dishonesty"? If so, I agree that Everyme should apologise for the lack of good faith shown and intemperate language used - different philosophies can produce different results from the same evidence; to label a differing conclusion as "dishonest" is both arrogant and incivil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for not informing everyme, but I didn't want to be seen as baiting him, so I was staying off his userpage. If it had just been the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, I'd have let it pass. But he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade. An apology would be nice personally, but that;s not the point, it is more important from the project's point of view that we communicate that there are limits, beyond which we don't tolerate this attitude. I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would Everyme been aware that use of that name (it means nothing to me) would have been particularly offensive to you, or to anyone, and is it possible that they still misunderstand that this is the case? I have to say that I missed this point when reviewing the links. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Em, his post doesn't make sense without it. But read all his remarks and draw your own conclusions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that Ashley Todd is the name of the hoaxer... On repeat review I don't think that Everyme meant what you have taken it to mean (IMO, regarding concerns over the BLP considerations of someone who themselves are admitted liars coupled with the "intellectual dishonesty" language), but they have not made any effort to explain themselves better and certainly not taken the route of apologising for any misunderstanding - but rather simply requested you to review the past content and draw different conclusions. I would prefer that Everyme made some comment here before seeing if any admin action is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe he meant something else? Maybe when he called me dumb, and stupid or dishonest, he was actually trying to say something nice as well?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the real issue here is that this is ultimately about McCain-Obama. In a couple of weeks, Everye will lose interest in this, and probably Scott as well. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not American, and have no partisan allegiances. I'm not sure that political stress excuses Everyme's behaviour.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What then excuses your behaviour? Concern about BLP? Hardly so. And for anyone who doesn't know: Yes, I'm for Obama and I despise vicious racebaiting, whether it comes from a confused young woman or from anybody else. More importantly however, I'm worried about encyclopedic accuracy and quality of discussion. Consider that the entire dispute began when Scott actually tried to argue against "Ashley Todd's mugging hoax" as the article title thusly. I responded to that by bitchslapping his comment, and I maintain that I was not only right, but doing the right thing. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• First off, Scott, thank you for your honesty in not informing me about this ANI thread. Thank you so much. I'm not entirely sure where I gave you the impression that I might possibly prefer not being notified over being "harassed" (a favourite buzzword of BLP-policy-fans btw, oh the irony). Well, for the record: I would have preferred it had you notified me, which I personally regard as a matter of basic politeness. Maybe you, Scott, would interpret a simple notification of an ANI thread about yourself as "harassment", but, just to kindly inform you about it, not everyone would and certainly not myself. Thank you very much for being so very considering and honest there. Wonderful.
  
  As to the merits of the thread itself: I've explained my position and my reasoning over and over, without getting any reply as to the merit of my reasoning. For Scott to say that "[...] he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade" is yet another comment I can only ... marvel at. I made it clear, both in my initial comment, then again at my user talk, that what I meant was the perception of some extent of intellectual dishonesty (for the record: my according reasoning has not been responded to by anyone so far). Deliberately mixing it up with Todd's racebaiting (an entirely different point in my initial comment, mind you) is, well, a wee bit far-fetched to say the very very least. So far-fetched indeed that I yet again can hardly think of any other valid explanation for why he would do that (and Scott did it in his initial comment at my talk page already).
  
  Scott refused to respond to my explanations, instead chose to be "just rather stunned". Well, again, I ask you, and this is all I care about: Why, just why, would you, at that article talk page, produce an arbitrary definition of "hoax" which you must know is entirely made up by yourself and wrong on top of that — and, most ironically, serves your stance in the article? Why would you do that? There are not so many possible explanations I can conjure up for that. Please respond to my reasoning for once. You, or anybody else who feels up to the task. Consider that I also made it very clear that in saying that I perceived his comment there as intellectually dishonest, my intention was obviously (or so I think) not to personally attack Scott. It was merely something I arrived at as the imho most likely conclusion of my reasoning. I did not comment on Scott, I commented on his comment, and told him in no unclear terms what I think of his comment, and, more importantly, why I do. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Just a footnote here, but I'd like to note that Scott's memory appears to fail him when he claims above that "I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before." Everyme 07:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This kind of comment about another editor is completely unacceptable: "I didn't assume for a second that you, Scott, might actually be dumb enough to believe your own bullshit, like your definition of what a hoax is. But ok, I'll leave the choice to you: Either you are intellectually dishonest, or you're stupid." The fact that you refuse to admit it was wrong or strike it is concerning as this is clearly a personal attack. (Full disclosure, I've had previous disagreements with Everyme) Oren0 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your explanation for his awkward definition of "hoax" at that article talk page? I merely summarised all the possible alternative explanations I could think of. Since I believe Scott is intelligent, that leaves intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for why he would give an arbitrary definition that just so happens to play to his stance on the article. Again, and for hopefully the last time: It's not a personal attack, it's applied logic. Also, again: Prove me wrong and I'll happily retract. But right now it's just not in my hands, I feel like I've done my homework. Please respond to my reasoning, which concluded with me seeing some degree of intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for Scott's initial comment. It's the most charming of the possible explanations I could think of: I was actually being polite and carefully weighed my limited knowledge of Scott. Everyme 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't currently have the time to get involved with this, so I can't give an opinion either way, but I have previously had to negotiate with Everyme over gross incivility after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash and I got the impression that was not the first time, either. Maybe, if we decide this was unsuitable (again, remember I haven't actually gone over this in detail), it's time somene dished out a block. How long are we going to leave this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a truly hilarious situation. I can either renounce, against my better current knowledge, what I assume to be flawless reasoning on my part, or face a block. Well, I'll have to go with the block then because I am unable to discover a flaw in my reasoning and nobody bothered to even respond to my reasoning. Nevermind that I felt insulted by Scott's way of POV pushing there, and how he insulted his fellow editors' intelligence. But at least he did it civilly, didn't he. And that's what counts. Fuck my reasoning, fuck encyclopedic accuracy. Right on. Everyme 09:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I'd appreciate it if the section could be renamed from the imho quite misleading "remarks" name to "Reasoning by Everyme", or alternatively "Flawed reasoning by Everyme", depending on a response by anyone who actually bothers to look at the situation at hand and doesn't merely respond on their own grudge. I am as civil as the situation allows me to be. No more, no less. And it's once again fantastic to see for how little valid reasoning counts on Wikipedia, and how zero effort to provide a valid reasoning is being constantly indulged if only the user follows the hivemind definition of "civility". Everyme 10:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"...what I assume to be flawless reasoning..." is beyond hilarious; it goes a long way to evidence Scott MacDonald's complaint. No matter how "flawless" you might consider your reasoning, you have a duty to explain yourself in civil terms to a query (and you are required to AGF as regards such queries); your responses are uncivil, and arrogant, and unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere - being right isn't enough. Speaking of being right, are we not supposed to use reliable sources when ascribing motive or characterisations to a living person? Verifiability, not truth, is the basis of complying with BLP concerns, so ultimately "flawless reasoning" or lack of is unimportant. I strongly suggest that the discussion is directed to how the reliable sources describe the individual, and take it from there. LHvU (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do of course realise that Scott's reasoning there was based on his definition of "hoax" as "implying a deception over time, not claims made then quickly retracted." — To which, taking your edit summary cue re: WP:V, I responded e.g. by linking to the Merriam-Webster definition of the term. Now, why would an intelligent person like Scott make up that exact erroneous definition, on an article talk page where to me personally, he appears to be concerned more about the BLP policy than about encyclopedic accuracy? Why would he do such a thing? Why? What exactly is your alternative explanation, if you so decidedly disagree that it's intellectual dishonesty? At any rate, his wasn't valid reasoning, according to Merriam-Webster. He also displayed a less than neutral approach in inaccurately portray the situation as "Someone who may be unstable said some untrue things." — Which, come to think of it (and on top of Scott's downplaying the situation, i.e. Todd's lying to the police, the racebaiting and the self-inflicted injuries to make her story more believable), contains an actual BLP violation, namely his labelling a living person as [mentally, I presume] "unstable" without presenting a reliable source for that extraordinary and potentially libellous claim. As to "unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere" : Are you trying to make me laugh or cry with that? Everybody else disagreed with him, I just took issue at the way he insult his fellow editors' intelligence in making up that definition right out of the blue. I felt insulted, and I reacted by carefully pointing it out to him. Obviously, he didn't like that. But I'm pretty sure he knows deep down that my criticism of his comment was spot-on. That's why he didn't react to any of my reasoning. He didn't comment on that at all, not even reiterating his definition of a hoax. He knows I'm right, he's just pissed off that someone called him on it to the fuller extent to which his comment was unacceptable. Everyme 10:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not, of course, realise that the question over the correct interpretation is irrelevant; we should use the term only if it is applied by the reliable source. Whether they are using the term in the correct sense is unimportant. Deliberating what constitutes the correct use is therefore original research, a point which Scott MacDonald also misses. The matter of the "consensual editing atmosphere" is in relation to your continuing incivil manner, and not to who is wrong or right. You earlier commented that you were frustrated by the fact SM was - in your view - incorrect yet their civil manner meant that they were not being castigated for their error. You seem blissfully unaware that ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution but for questions on violation of WP policies. You were and continue to be in violation of WP:Civil, and are displaying a lack of appreciation of WP:V. SM has also not understood the application of WP:V, but he has conducted himself in an appropriate manner in this instance. I am uncertain if sanctioning you is going to improve your understanding on how editors are supposed to conduct themselves, so I see no further purpose in continuing this discussing this with you here. LHvU (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Google says hoax, not incident. Great dispute resolution, everybody. Let's move on. Everyme 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the suitability of the term hoax. I made a case, and two people quite civilly told me I was wrong. That's fine and needs no dispute resolution. However, you then came in with gratuitous personal attacks, and when asked refused to remove them and engaged in more. Since that reflects on your weaknesses rather than mine, I've removed them myself and consider the matter closed. You, perhaps should reflect on your aggression, because if you continue in this manner I predict your future with this project will be short. I grant you the last word, and just hope it will not compound your incivility.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Last word was here. 78.34.141.200 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyme: Why don't you tone it down about 5 rhetorical notches? Your excuse that you "felt insulted" doesn't hold much water, I have to say. Your own response, on the other hand, was remarkably insulting. Just like Scott MacDonald can be wrong and civil, you should strive to be both right and civil. A conclusion of "intellectual dishonesty" is not supported by what Scott wrote, and certainly your further evaluation of him as either stupid or dishonest is also unsupported by any evidence. The flaw in your logic is this: You assume that in order to be wrong in this instance he must be stupid, deduce that he is not stupid, and conclude that he must be lying. Your first assumption is incorrect - you can be wrong without being stupid. Therefore your conclusion is not as flawlessly logical as you believed. Avruch ^T 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not logical at all. It's simply rude, and ad hominems are a logical fallacy. If someone does something wrong, there are other ways to react than arrogant and accusative speech. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone stupid is a personal attack, even if it's true. You can't logic away the fact that your comment was insulting and that's why you should retract it IMO. Oren0 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott feels rightly insulted here. The comments by Everyme were highly insulting and should be withdrawn. Hobartimus (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite an outstandig example of wiki lawyering by Everyme, an apology is in order to insure that he understands that such insults wont be tolerated. Failiure to do so would most likly warrant a block as the user is well aware of our policies on civilty.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? I suppose you simply don't understand that term. Anyway, you forgot to mention that you yourself have been featured at the noticeboards for egregious incivility, and also that we have had some conflict in the past (was admittedly too lazy to dig through the AN/I archives, should be in there somewhere). I suppose you just forgot to mention that. You certainly did not omit it so as to appear more uninvolved. 78.34.141.200 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either person, it just happened that I was reported above this discussion and my eyes wandered down. Does the guy go about insulting people all the time? If he does he should be warned, the discussions should be about articles, not about the editors, but insisting in getting "apologies" and "retractions" looks to me a bit like kids having a fight, let's behave like grownups, the guy should be warned not to voice again his opinion about fellow editors because it's against the rules (even if he considers he's right) and that should be it, insisting in getting apologies is a bit silly (oh my, will I be banned from Wikipedia because I said "silly"?) And by the way, I don't really get this. How can we ask (and actually force) somebody to be dishonest by apologizing for something that he obviously believes in? (this is a bit scarry, you know like 1984 and thought control...) At most the admins could say: "delete that sentence because is against the rules or you'll be punished for breaking the rules and don't continue to discuss editors", simple as that. BTW, shouldn't things that deal with incivility be reported in another part of Wikipedia? Isn't there a process, you need to warn the person and if the person continues with incivilities then you report them to WP:WQA. Has this noticeboard become a place where "justice" is dispensed summarily? Why are people reported here instead of where they should be reported? man with one red shoe (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I dislike posting in these threads, it is probably relevant to mention User:Wizardman's conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dorftrottel#Conclusion. Also, an IP claims to be the individual under discussion as seen in this edit. --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A Nobody, I believe you posted in the wrong thread. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? It looks like Everyme was Dorftrottel. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that now. My apologies, I wasn't reading carefully enough.

So, the question now: Everyme has not responded to this thread, has apparently not retracted his remarks. Do we want to let this fly or take action? I don't have a preference. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyme has been clearly shown to be unwilling to avoid completely unacceptable remarks in disputes, or incapable of doing so. This needs to be changed. Action. --Kizor 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're yet another editor who rightly thinks their life would be easier without me around. Maybe my memory is just better than yours, but when I saw your comment here, I immediately remembered having challenged some minor bullshit from you in the past. I suppose you simply forgot to mention that. You certainly did not omit it so as to appear more uninvolved. 78.34.141.200 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I recalled that we'd had some kind of unpleasant encounter in the past. It looks like we met once, briefly, six months ago. Less time than that passed between me being blocked and me being granted adminship. Your presence here has little bearing on my life and my time on Wikipedia, so I don't consider exchanging thirteen to fifteen inconsequential lines last spring to constitute involvement or a taint on my judgement. Others are welcome to weigh in on this. --Kizor 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This search indicates that I also comment on your nomination here, last February. We are both present on a few talk pages, but not in the same sections. And no, I don't think that this counts as involvement, either. --Kizor 12:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saying, I've had some tiny minor doubts regarding your judgement ever since you accused me of "throwing streams of insults against articles" for this comment of mine. 78.34.128.69 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, those words are clearly linked to as well as apparent in your previous link. Given the habits of discourse you have demonstrated, I stand by them. Would it be possible to convince you that I did not - and do not - lie to boost my standing in WP discussions? --Kizor 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Elisabeth, I was rolling on the floor at "As much as I dislike posting in these threads." 78.34.141.200 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A bit of a strong attack considering that scott mcdonald made a single two line posting on the subject. One would, I presume, need a lot more rhetoric for a charge of intellectual dishonesty. But, insulting? I wouldn't really call it that. We all spend a good part of our day being intellectually dishonest (come on, admit it!) and it should be no big deal if one is labeled that in a debate (read, for example Intellectual dishonesty). It is certainly not the same as being called 'stupid' and is not properly an Ad hominem argument since it is the argument that is being attacked rather than the speaker. But, I agree that it is probably not productive to throw labels around especially when an editor has made a single objection, that objection has been addressed by others, and the editor has not yet had the opportunity to comment on the logic of the responses. I see that scottmcdonald has deleted the remarks that he/she found offensive, so it probably makes sense to close this report and let the matter rest. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

but it would be reasonable to suppose that this sort of absolutely inexcusable abuse will be continued, here or somewhere else--judging by the edit history of even the last few weeks. At some point this has to stop. I suggest a 24 hour block, with the understanding it will be increased upon repeats. People who edit here need protection against this, and the appropriate time to have stopped tolerating it was a good while ago. (If we hadn't disagreed about various things at various times i'd do the block myself.) DGG (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What purpose would that block serve, iyo? What do you think the value of blocking me is? Give me a warning? Seriously? The "incident" was several days ago, the former admin now known as "Scott MacDonald" has unilaterally done what none of the morally outraged people here cared to do, which was to refactor the (logically deduced, no less) "personal attack" against his comment him. Please also consider that I'm not hellbent on editing via a registered account either. The adding of references and formatting I mainly do is entirely possible via IP. If the community decides to indef block/ban me, I'd just continue doing such largely uncontroversial edits via IP, with a non-editing sock account to maintain a watchlist, and maybe do very minor edits on semiprotected articles. In other words: Do your worst. You will not keep me from working on the encyclopedia. Also, David and anyone else reading this, if you honestly believe that people like e.g. Promethean and "A Nobody" are more valuable and --in contrast to myself-- worth having around, I suppose nothing short of a long-term electroshock regimen could possibly be done to change your mind anyway. Not that I propose such a thing, but it's getting too ridiculous and I'm tired of defending myself against the torrent of people commenting here against me in a dishonest or at least mindless way, many of them omitting mention of prior encounters they've had with me -- possibly because I have been right in most those encounters, and they were wrong. It wouldn't help their vested goal against me one bit if they mentioned those run-ins. Anyway, I honestly don't care either way. I just wonder, with some of those editors who are defended at every turn here and elsewhere, who needs vandals and trolls? But calling one of them on their bullshit, that's a big no-no. Especially when it's a former admin, like "Scott MacDonald". Right. And nobody bothered to refactor my "unacceptable personal attack" on the article talk page. Nobody but Scott himself. Best practice? Hardly so. 78.34.128.69 (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I am not fully aware of Everyme's past history on the project but, looking purely at this incident, I do not think it warrants serious action and, to me anyway, this whole exercise seems a perfect way to inflame passions on a small offense, which it has successfully done. Calling someone intellectually dishonest hardly warrants censure, it is an accepted form of attack in debate. Whatever the history of an editor, the best thing to do when a particular infraction is minor, is to move on quickly. Which is why I suggest this 'incident report' be closed as soon as possible. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's us step back a bit and not judge if the guy is unpleasant or not (I have my own opinion about this), but let's judge if he really broke a rule. So if you debate with somebody and you tell him "I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim that ... ... " is it a personal attack or is it actually an attack on what the person said? I think it's borderline incident and as Regents Park I don't think it warrants serious action. Yeah, it's probably not the best example of behavior, but banning offence? And let me quote from WP:DR "Turn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for problems with uncivil editors. First, however, consider ignoring it – you can often get much more accomplished by rising above uncivil comments, and staying focussed on the task at hand." Which didn't seem to have happened in this case. man with one red shoe (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to apologise for anything. And David, come to think of it, it's hilarious that you are arguing a block after I called you out on intimidating one hardworking editor for the hard work their doing. The least you could have done would be to abstain from commenting here. See here and here and judge for yourselves on the appropriateness of DGG commenting here the way he did. Funny. 78.34.128.69 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comments at both places there (not that this is the place to discuss them) ; I have had many useful discussions with wiki opponents off wiki--I don;t consider suggesting such to be very intimidating. What I do find intimidating is when people overuse Bold, or B&R, and aren't willing to proceed to the D. Given that none of the discussion above is about either that issue, that general topic, or that user, I don't the se relevance of this--especially in response to a comment that I was deliberatly *not* using admin tools. Were I to use them on you, then you would indeed have a complaint.

as for my comments here, I think the repetitive use of deirect insults to fellow editors is cause for a block. It is normally followed by repeats, and in your case it has frequently been. If the consensus here is that the language compalined of is not sanctionable, the wiki will continue as a relatively unfriendly place. Myself, I can cope with that--I've known worse. But i don';t see why others should tolerate it. DGG (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You must have overlooked the response I gave immediately below your initial comment above. Oh, and I laugh into your face for the last comment. You threatened another editor with a topic ban, for his doing good work on the encyclopedia. Nothing is more uncivil and unacceptable than that. And you show no insight as well. You, David, should be desysopped and banned for that. 78.34.146.26 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to help yourself much... man with one red shoe (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither does DGG. 78.34.145.215 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 08:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are we done here? This circus act is turning into a traffic accident. HalfShadow 22:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let's archive this. It's clear we're not going to get any reconciliations, apologies, resolutions etc. out of this, and I don't think there's a need for sanctions (yet?) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. But I'm not going to say sorry. Sorry, I'm just messing with you guys. I was hoping that someone would take the bait and block me for saying that I'm not going to apologise. 78.34.145.215 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 08:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Ariobarza

Resolved

 – Ariobarza blocked for one week by Alvestrand. --Elonka 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – I see no resolution here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ariobarza blocked "for a time period of infinite" by Jehochman.--Alvestrand (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've recently been working on articles relating to ancient Babylonian history, but I'm getting increasingly concerned by the behaviour of Ariobarza (talk · contribs). While he is an enthusiastic contributor, he appears to reject the prohibition of original research. He constantly promotes original research and regularly makes edits, or even writes articles, on the basis of his own personal interpretations of sources. His additions are rarely if ever accompanied by citations. He treats Wikipedia as a battlefield, is aggressive, confrontional and accuses other editors of pursuing an anti-Iranian or even "neo-conservative" agenda (it's news to me that there's a neocon viewpoint on ancient history!). When his edits are questioned or criticised, he gets angry and posts long, rambling and often angry rants to article and user talk pages to justify his edits and views. He responds dismissively or with hostility to advice given in good faith and assumes bad faith of others who do not share his POV or question his use of original research. Key diffs:

• Promotion of original research. Numerous examples of articles created on the basis of uncited OR and personal interpretations: Battle of the Tigris (ongoing AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris); Siege of Ecbatana (repeatedly created and deleted via AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ecbatana); Siege of Halicarnassus (repeatedly created and deleted); Battle of Media (deleted); Battle of Mylasa, Battle of Pedasa, Siege of Pasargadae Hill, Battle of Pasargadae, Mitradates, Persian Revolt etc (all will need to be cleaned up as appropriate). Repeated unsourced additions to articles, which other editors have reverted: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. He is quite open about pursuing OR (which he calls "connecting the dots") in articles.[78]

• Treating Wikipedia as a battlefield / lack of good faith. Believes it's "up to me to stop Xerxes hordes". [79] Accuses other editors of pursing "an agenda". [80] [81] [82]. Accuses me of pursing "neo-conservative" agenda (Ariobarza apparently believes this is a westerners vs Iran situation and that he's defending Iranian honour) [83].

• Incivility. Numerous personal attacks against other editors. [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] for just a few examples. Has been warned by other editors and admins to stop this behaviour - [91] [92] [93] - but has continued regardless [94].

• Tendentious conduct on talk pages. Routinely posts long, rambling self-justifications and rants to talk pages (too many examples to list, see [95] for one example).

• Inappropriate canvassing. Canvassed Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris with a characteristic angry rant against myself. [96] (See also #User:Tundrabuggy below.)

I gather that Dougweller (talk · contribs) has been trying to "reform" Ariobarza for some months, but without any success. Given Ariobarza's complete refusal to listen to any outside advice from other editors and admins, his obvious anger management problems and his ongoing use of Wikipedia to promote his personal views, I think a topic ban covering articles relating to Near Eastern and classical history would be appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I GATHER that ChrisO is wrong that Dougweller has not reformed me, because I greatly made and improved the Battle of Hryba and almost got and I am in the process of getting a GA award for it, so I have great potential, but The Wall of Pink Floyd has is trying to block me, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

• A NOTE ALL SHOULD READA topic ban, I'll still can edit articles you know. Now the message, ChrisO is lucky I do not have time to make a list of his faults and misconducts, which if I did, it would be longer that this page. So please do NOT remove this message, let it be a reminder to those that come here, so when they come here they get the FULL picture, not only ChrisO's side of events (unfairness is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, for lack of representation) and know that ChrisO were onced blocked, which now he is trying to get me mad, so I can get blocked. And all users will regret agreeing with ChrisO that the Battle of the Tigris did not happen, which as right now I am gathering the sources, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I can confirm that Ariobarza has been incivil to ChrisO (and others; he called me "Mr. Wall" here), and that Ariobarza has engaged in WP:OR on the articles under discussion. Since I've pointed out to Ariobarza that he has no sources for his claims, I suppose I should regard myself as a participant. I'll leave it to others to take action, if warranted.--Alvestrand (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did warn the user in question regarding the "Bratz dolls" uncivil comment made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris after looking through that day's list of AfDs as usual. I felt that, instead of coming to ANI, that a RfC for user conduct should have been initiated, as this seems to be a blatant misconduct issue in which multiple editors have failed to resolve. However, since we are here now, I would leave the decision on the action to be taken to whomever. MuZemike (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An RFC might be helpful. I don't think we are about to ban or block this user here and now. To me, Ariobarza's editing seems more confused than malicious. A thread on ANI does not serve much purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did consider an RfC, but many different editors have offered advice to him over many weeks and months and he has consistently responded by attacking them, dismissing them or ignoring them. I don't believe that Ariobarza is willing to respond positively to feedback. An RfC can serve no useful purpose in that situation. He isn't contributing anything useful, he's creating a poisonous atmosphere by constantly attacking those with whom he disagrees, he's actively degrading articles by pushing OR all the time; why exactly are we letting him continue to edit? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only really been involved at the Battle of the Tigris AfD, although have been aware of issues on related articles. In my view the comments on that page, both from Ariobarza and from others, sum up the overall problems pretty clearly on the one page. When editors start here they often dive in over-eagerly into articles, perhaps excited by the possibility that their views and thoughts will actually get integrated into content here. Gradually most either drop out altogether when they realise that they can't force their personal views into articles against consensus and/or policy, or stay but become a little more cautious and take on board the limitations imposed by core policies on original research, verifiability etc. Others just continue brazenly on, demanding the right to impose their personal world views and analysis all over various pages. Those editors lose the right to fall back on the excuse that they're new, or that they don't understand. Ariobarza even appears to claim the right to conduct original research and make "discoveries", about matters that are presumably hitherto unknown to scholarship. This latest example means we have a whole article here about a supposed battle that no reliable source appears to have any record of (and even were these sources to exist, they should be found first and the article then built around them, not the other way round of course). It totally diminishes the credibility of this place as an encyclopedic resource of any sort. Maybe strictly it should have been the first step, but I can't see what an RfC would accomplish - Ariobarza is constantly subject to comments from a wide range of editors, but just shouts back at them while asserting to right to do what he wants. --Nickhh (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That has been my experience at Talk:Battle of Opis, which has been one long tedious OR-fest from Ariobarza. He has ignored everything that has been said by other editors and created Battle of the Tigris as a POV-fork of the first article, after he couldn't persuade people to include his OR. His conduct at Talk:Battle of Opis - in particular his constant insistance that he's right and everyone else is wrong or biased - is what leads me to believe that an RfC would not be of any use. Everything's already been said that needs to be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I never said I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The original research article says if in original research I find a discovery, then I could include it in Wikipedia, IF it is supported by sources. Your making up and jumping to conclusions about what I say, is very offending to me. Shall I say, this cornering and trapping reminds me of a saying... (The few against the many). I am currently minded my own business, so please, if I am going to suffer the same fate as Caesar, better do it now when my gaurd is down, than later. (When ariobarza says stuff like this he is being sarcastic.) OR, you guys can help me find sources for the battle, and not try to hinder progress on Wikipedia by deleting me. Thanks a lot.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The article you are linking to is a(nother) rather badly written and referenced Wikipedia article, not the policy. I've already pointed this out to you here, but you seem to have ignored that. Nor does it even say anything approaching what you are claiming it does in any event. And finally the whole point is that you do not anyway have any sources for claiming that there were such events as "Battle of the Tigris" or "Siege of Kapisa". Your attempts to invoke this irrelevant WP article as justification for your behaviour merely serves to highlight the nature of the problem I'm afraid. --Nickhh (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

*Ahem*, canvassing and forum shopping alert: ChrisO has been canvassing a number of involved editors ([97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]) to post here and echo his comments. As for Ariobarza, (s)he has already been warned for her inappropriate comments which were made in an apparent moment of frustration, and this is sufficient enough for now. If ChrisO feels otherwise, he should follow due process and initiate and RfC for user conduct which would allow a broader community input. Khoikhoi 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Khoikhoi, don't you remember? Ariobarza's already had an RFC a few weeks ago: it just got deleted for some strange reason or other. I think. Best, Moreschi (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I notified the people who were already involved in the discussions with/about Ariobarza, so kindly keep your aspersions to yourself. As for Ariobarza, I note that you haven't addressed his continuous promotion of OR (which is the centre of the problem), and it's insufficient to blame "an apparent moment of frustration" for repeated personal attacks on various editors on many occasions recently. Judging from his contribution, he's been behaving like an angry crank for months. We don't need this kind of editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was for conduct that involved two other users (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man). The log says that it was deleted because it was "uncertified." If that's the case, we should open a solo one as there is more of a case this time around for one. MuZemike (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was certified; there was a dispute over whether it had been properly certified. I didn't bother appealing the deletion at the time because I felt the RfC had served its purpose. Unfortunately I seem to have been wrong about that. If others feel that an RfC is needed, I could probably create a fresh one based on the evidence above, but it will probably end up in arbitration. To be honest, I think this is something that the community can and should deal with - we shouldn't need to ask the arbitrators to do what we should be doing anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

JUst recently I been acting up because of ChrisO, AND I called 4 users Bratz dolls, GET OVER IT! Suggesting from ChrisO's tone, he is saying, OFF WITH HIS (ariobarza's) HEAD. Sure you guys do not need me, its not like it I made 3,000 valid contributions to Wikipedia. Your right ChrisO I should be Quarantined.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Dear, All user involved (HMM) I have come to the conclusion that I have been acting up a whole lot. Therefore I am currently writing a Public Apology to all the users I have offended and I have been wrong on most of the things. So for the sake of good faith I declare that we please put this behind us, and not escalate things, therefore we can resume progress on Wikipedia. I am willing to fix all my faults tommorow, if you and others do this now. My problem is I am short on time and often forget to source articles in the first place (which leads most users to think I am doing original research) and this is understandable from my part, so my main and maybe only problem is time managment. With best regards, thank you all (users for contributing free knoweldge to humanity) for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk Sincerly, Ariobarza

Ariobarza's outbursts are merely the icing on the cake as it were of the problem. The bigger, more fundamental problem is that this editor is dumping extremely poor and inaccurate content into this encyclopedia, based on their own amateur guesswork and original research, and has been doing this for over 8 months, with around 2,000 mainspace edits. You only have to stop and look at what they're doing for a couple of minutes - as I did - and work this out. I really would urge others to analyse what is going on rather than simply suggesting that an RfC would be better or whatever, on a point of procedure. Other editors have had to spend hours trying to stem or rollback the more egregious errors, and counselling Ariobarza on how to edit within the rules. But it just doesn't stop. As I've said it's damaging, and ultimately embarrassing. --Nickhh (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with Nickhh. I've taken the time to have a look through a fair bit of Ariobarza's editing history (in addition to the diffs provided here) and the quality of his contributions is pretty grim. It's one thing to have an editor who makes the odd spelling and grammar error but whose contributions of net benefit to the 'pedia, but this situation is something else altogether. I'm sure that Ariobazra means well, but his contributions are seriously diminishing quality of the articles he focuses on. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the excuse that he's "short on time" and "forgets" to provide sources. Add that to the Pantheon of the Lame. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to work with this editor since June, trying my best to explain about original research, using references, advising him that he shouldn't self-assess his own articles (he just ignored the criteria and gave an unreferenced article a 'B' classification), using his sandbox (I was the third editor to suggest this, he was first asked to do this in February rather than create articles with no references), etc. I tried my best to work with him and support him for some time, then started to simply give up and ignore him - which isn't easy simply because he does things that shouldn't be ignored. For a while on Persian Revolt he was adding huge chunks of stuff straight from a mid-19th century book by Rawlinson, footnote numbers and all - which I reverted when I discovered that as old as it was, it has a current copyright - but it looked ridiculous [104]. It would be useful if people looked at his talk page to see just how many editors have commented on problems with his edits. There are still quite a few articles that he created with no references that he hasn't deal with, and as we still here he hasn't learned from past comments. I'm also unhappy with the way he adds infoboxes with information in them that is often based on his OR. I don't know what to do about him, but I think a review of all the articles he created is probably necessary, he's been given months to sort them out. Eg Siege of Pasargadae Hill where I asked him four months ago for references, Siege of Doriskos which has been waiting since February for references, etc. I think he should request adoption and if he does that, seek guidance as to which of his articles that he created he can improve and which he himself should take to AfD. He shouldn't be working on any other articles until those he created are cleared up. If he doesn't accept adoption I think more stringent action needs to be taken for the sake of Wikipedia. He has been given advice which he hasn't followed for a very long period of time, and it looks as though crunch time has finally arrived. Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You people just don't stop. Despite my efforts to say I am sorry and will make wiser contributions to Wikipedia. You do three things, keep damning my efforts, making uneccessary critisims on things I am taking care of as of now, and finally taking things to the extreme. Why, I am already before God, is he showing me a list of my sins? Did you guys read the bolded message I put, or ignored it, which Dougweller has said openly? I am thinking of taking this to administrater abuse, not because you have abused your powers, but are now engaged in stalking my edits, taunting, and threatening me with uneccessary things. And I thought I could talk to you people (a small group of admin with special dreams). I have been only mean to one or two users, so why are you, 90% admin coordinating your attacks. You make it seem like I am the only one with faults here, whereas some of you have done more terrible things than I have, (it might be because this is my ANI page) I have been here for just over a year. Seeing that I am short on time, and edit fast, you could have helped me with my research (not only pointing out my wrong things) on the Battle of the Tigris, and many other articles, but you chose to accuse me of not putting sources, and blaming me for vage sources and taking it to speedily delete (A DAY AFTER IT WAS MADE). So its up to you guys if you want to escalate things, I WILL not hesitate to go the administrater abuses page. THANK YOU.--Ariobarza (talk)

Please calm down. The editing you have been doing does seem to legitimately be a big problem. Attacking administrators back only leads to getting blocked, in the end - it's not OK, it's not acceptable user behavior. Please calm down and describe what you will do to fix your prior editing problems, and make it clear that you understand what those problems were. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Click on the links ChrisO provides for you here, and read my messages to end, and then DECIDE whether most of them are valid arguements or not.

Ariobarza has now taken to removing links to problem articles in ChrisO's original post on WP:ANI. I am sorry but surely this is the proverbial last straw in terms of what they are doing in WP as a whole? --Nickhh (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He's also taken to altering my comments on talk pages to make it appear as if I'm saying things I haven't said. [105]. Not a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those diffs are problematic. I will have a word with Ariobarza. --Elonka 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd seen that too. A preference for mentorship and a short topic ban has now turned towards support for a total block. This kind of behaviour cannot, surely, be tolerated. What is this editor contributing apart from poor content, endless obfuscation and outright fraud? --Nickhh (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody take a mentorship of Ariobarza. It looks like an enthusiastic editor that may need some help. Maybe Khoikhoi? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi would not be a good choice; his behaviour is problematic in its own way. See my comments at the bottom of #User:Tundrabuggy below. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently someone did not get that Siege of Kapisa does not belong here I stand by what I did. Now ChrisO because he feels he was defeated in the feud of Opis he is LITERALLY TRYING TO DELETE ALL THE ARTICLEs I HAVE MADE, IF HE CONTinues to do this I will take him ADMIN BANNING. ANd I will offend Nickhh, for is Bull**** comments, OBFUSCATION AND OUTRIGHT FRAUD? Please get a life or stay out of mine. As you all for falling for ChrisO bones in his closet, you have drived me up the wall, I already said this here, your welcomed to include this entry in my uncivil behavior section. If I go down, all on this page will be sucked into the black hole to, so do not think your GANG is going to get away with this, LACK OF REPRESENTATION is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, so do not worry, policy changes and (Admins) being removed is in the works/ pre-production. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

While I don't see how he plans to implement his threats, he's definitely being threatening. Threats have no place in Wikipedia discussions. Blocked for a week. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to my nomination of Siege of Kapisa for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa. This is exactly what I had feared would be the case; he appears to think he WP:OWNs the articles he's created and gets abusively hostile when his edits are questioned. The message he left on my talk page is a case in point. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

I don't recall editing any articles in common with Ariobarza, but I have interacted with another editor (Ramu50) who was recently blocked for similar behavior: repeated poor quality, albeit good faith edits, followed by unfounded accusations against those editors pointing out said problems. My position then was it is now: Ariobarza's editing privileges have to put in balance with the amount of clean-up work he generates for other editors. The articles in question seem to revolve around ancient history. I would propose the following topic restriction: Ariobarza is prohibited from making edits on ancient history article without discussing them first on the talk page of the article. Failure to comply could result in a short block (12hrs). VG ☎ 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Airobarza already generates huge blocks OF TEXT (I really wish he'd break his caps lock key) on talk pages, both user and article, and usually ignores the replies. Although I think this is a good idea, past evidence suggests it isn't enough, he really needs a mentor. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that such a sanction will work in its current wording. Additionally, I'd like to see an RFC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He's just reappeared, despite his block, in IP form on the Battle of Tigris AfD [106]. --Folantin (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. Does anyone still think a RfC/U would achieve anything? VG ☎ 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And now on the article itself. As for restrictions once the block expires, the above seems reasonable in principle. However it would have to be specific about covering the creation of new articles, and would probably have to relate to anything to do with Iran as a whole too. It would also leave him free to continue filling out talk pages, and to a certain extent of course it would be encouraging him to do that - not harmful per se, but mildly disruptive. --Nickhh (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some admin should explain the concept of WP:BLOCK to him. He doesn't seem to get it. --Folantin (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As with WP:OR, I think he understands knows well what the policy says, but he either doesn't agree with it or he doesn't think it applies to him. Look at the IP he's using - it's an open proxy in a school district in California. This is (one of) his normal logged-out IP addresses, an ISP in Texas. That is deliberate block evasion, quite clearly. Re VG's comment - what would an RfC/U achieve? He's shown time and again that he simply doesn't listen to what other people say. He was warned not to make further personal attacks by three admins and promptly got himself blocked after posting further rants. He's said several times that he'll change his ways but has promptly gone back to the same behaviour again. He ignores all the advice he gets on talk pages and his own user talk page. He's just ignored a block, deliberately evading it through an open proxy and continued editing regardless.

As for a topic restriction, part of the problem with Ariobarza's behaviour is his abuse of talk pages; he posts reams of original research and bogs everyone else down in endless circular discussions. Restricting him to talk pages will simply mean that instead of adding OR to articles some of the time and behaving tendentiously on talk pages the rest of the time, he will end up behave tendentiously on talk pages all of the time. Let's just get this over with - block him or topic-ban him and have done with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what the benefit to Wikipedia would be having him back. If we spent as much time trying to retain experts as we do trying to reform problem users this encyclopaedia might actually get somewhere. As it is, having persistent troublemakers around tends to scare most experts away. --Folantin (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a complete ban at this point. Given that he edits from proxies while blocked, Ariobarza's obviously going to ignore any topic ban. Enough time wasted with him. VG ☎ 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the now-increased veracity of the situation and the actions taken as a result of this thread, I am now not sure that an RFC/U would help. However, it can't hurt to ask for input from the broader community on what should be done, which is what that would accomplish. MuZemike (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What more "input from the broader community" do we need and what would that accomplish? We have a perfectly straightforward situation here of a disruptive, abusive, block-evading editor who's already wasted far too much of people's time. As Vasile says, "enough time wasted with him". I agree that a complete ban would be appropriate now. He's had enough second chances. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this possibly resolved? A topic ban at the very least is still on the table. Ariobarza has violated his block already. Not what I'd call resolved. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the very recent mess on his talk page, I think maybe we should now bring this to WP:AN for a ban discussion. I'm sorry, but I tried to assume good faith as much as I could. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure why we have to move this to AN when all the evidence is here. Given the monkeying around with block evasion, this looks like a pretty clear-cut case for a ban. Why should we waste any more time? --Folantin (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The block evading sock puppetry combined with the history of disruption shows that this user account should not be allowed to edit further. If somebody would like to volunteer to mentor them and take responsibility for ensuring that they do not resume disruption, I will consider undoing the indefinite block that I am placing on the account. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I've been following the AfDs and reluctantly concur. Personally, I'm less concerned with the sockpuppetry and more concerned with Ariobarza's apparent inability to learn from constructive criticism. He seems unwilling or unable to grasp why original research isn't welcome in Wikipedia articles, and I'm not sure if he ever will be willing to edit within our guidelines. As for a mentor, I'm fairly certain that wouldn't help. It would appear that the user has gotten heaps of advice and guidance from users knowledgeable in his subject area, and has refused to listen to it, so a mentor without specific knowledge would likely be ineffectual. I hate to see a good faith contributor blocked indefinitely (and I do believe he is a good faith contributor), but he seems ill suited for the project. AniMate 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption on Obama talk page

Resolved

 – 2wk block Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - just back from 1-week ban, immediately engages in old behavior: edit warring, incivility, 3RR vios, fringe theories, disruption.

• 5-6 fringe theories posted and repeatedly posted (after community deleted, closed, archived, etc) in 2 days on Obama talk page - see his edit history
• 3RR report here fore re-opening closed discussions: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#
• Now wikistalking / harassing other editors: disrupts an editor's editor review by accusing him of being in cahoots with "friends";[107] trolls my talk page[108][109] (last one was re-posting accusations on my talk page after I deleted them)

In a more general sense there are several editors returning or joining the page who have been causing disruption. We could use some no-nonsense help on the page, probably for the next few days until the election. Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - Thegoodlocust is blocked for 2 weeks based on the 3RR report.[110] The broader issue about what to do about Barack Obama and Sarah Palin remains (John McCain and Joe Biden too, I suppose, but they are much quieter). Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting ban or at least a stern final warning

Resolved

 – The matter was deescalated. No further admin intervention required. VG ☎ 17:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak Atheist (talk · contribs) is an account created only yesterday. He immediately declared to the world that he is on Wikipedia with a specific agenda. He then posted a few inflammatory and racially directed comments ([111], [112], [113]). He then set out to leave messages for some established editors calling them "fascist" ([114], [115]). He then created a section on his talk page titled "Creating the Bosniak Lobbyist group" which, as of this writing, currently reads as follows:

This is where Bosniaks and those who want to help Bosniaks will gather to create a Lobby group for Wikipedia to promote Bosniak perspective. Please sign in below, and gather as many people as possible, when there is more than 10 people, we will start putting forward our perspectives on Wikipedia pages, until then we shall comment only on non-XYU subjects. Please note that only competent English language speakers may apply. We are also compatible with non-Bosniaks such as Albanians and Croatians, who are victims of Serbian favouring aggressive Wikipedia editors. I propose to unite us all, to defeat Genocide denier's and minimizers.

He then proceeded to canvass for potential members of his "lobby" ([116], [117], [118], [119], [120] even though he was advised by an administrator not to do so.

Since he actually requested guidance by creating a section on his talk page titled "I am a totally new user to Wikipedia" and saying "Please post here anything useful such as regulations etc. I will read them carefully", I acutally did post a welcome template and left a few polite messages until he deleted them all with this edit calling my remarks "not very useful attacks" and calling me a "Genocide denier" in the edit summary. User:Ckatz also left some links for him to read but those were ignored as well.

I would like second and third opinions on whether this person has anything good to contribute at this point that would make it worthwhile to put up with his inflammatory rhetoric and his lobbying to "get enough users to run a viable consensus".

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read the regulations on canvassing, and theres nothing secret about what I'm doing therefore it fails the test for canvassing. Reason for what I'm doing is, Wikipedia editors are sick of wild/aggressive Serb editors getting away with Genocide appologist/denial agenda's unchallenged where NPOW is almost extinct in XYU articles. By the way, it is not NPOW that the Kosovo is not even highlighted in the country map of Serbia article. Somebody needs to put a stop to Serbian only POW on Wikipedia. By the way did you know that most Wikipedia users come from nations that recognised Kosovo? So why is Kosovo non-existent in the map of Serbia? NPOW is my agenda quite obviously. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask administrators to please not get distracted to think that this is a content dispute. It has to do with calling editors "fascist" and canvassing for a lobby to promote an agenda.

Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've obviously withdrawn that since I am new to Wikipedia, and I have things to learn, but I wish the admins would do something about Serbian bullying of non-Serb editors and total dominance of Serb POW. Then we would all make a huge step toward more order in Wikipeda XYU articles. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a lengthy message on Bosniak Atheist's talk page with some advice. BA admits to being a newbie, so let's show a little patience and give him/her a chance to learn our policies. Obviously civility is important on any article page (even civility directed towards someone we believe to be promoting or exculpating some awful things). But promoting a diverse community of editors is also important and if we do not have any or many editors from Bosnia, we should try toi welcome more. Everyone needs to comply with NPOV. I hope BA learns that the effective way to deal with a POV pusher is not to make personal attacks on the talk page, or simply push a different POV, but patiently to insist that any article comply with NPOV and follow our dispute resolution process if there are conflicts in complying with NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your message on his talk page and it was well crafted and informative. Thank you and I sincerely hope that the point gets across but forgive me if I have my reservations. I fear that the issue of Bosnian editors not being welcomed is a red herring in this particular case. The Wikipedia corps of editors has plenty of Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats and the only issue is how to get them all to get along. Promoting agendas and calling people fascist and bullies is not the way to do so, without excuse. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign was a recent case of Wikilobbying and it was dealt with harshly but fairly due to the recognized potential of damage from a co-ordinated attempt to influence the content of Wikipedia.

Anyways, thanks for your input. It's what I was looking for and I appreciate the time and the effort.

Regards, SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Essesac

Hi. It looks like User:Essesac has been recreating more or less the same version of Antoine Cassese, Inventor or Antoine Cassese since December 2007. It's problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which are copyright issues (verbatim from here), COI and notability. The user has been warned a number of times but so far hasn't responded to any. I wasn't sure what the procedure was for this kind of thing, so I thought I would mention it here. Maethordaer (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Article baleeted, yet again, and a stern "don't do it again" left on the user's talk page. If it's recreated, a block is probably warranted - at this point, it doesn't appear the editor in question is Getting It. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, my gut tells me the user is probably also the owner of the website in question and probably also the copyright holder of the lifted text (I'm sure everyone noticed what happens when you spell "Cassese" backwards). But in any case, the account is clearly a promotional SPA and nobody will shed a tear if the account is indef blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – MastCell is cleaning up the backlog. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing urgent or anything but I don't think any admins have been active over there since midnight-ish. Anyone available?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of 3RR

Yesterday, I was blocked for edit warring. I can't deny I made more than 3 reverts on 2008 Weliveriya bombing, though the blocking admin failed to look into the talk page of the article. I had rationally discussed the matter with User:Watchdogb on that page. Isn't the purpose of 3RR to be if someone doesn't do that??? We had come to a concensus that the categories in question should stay, and the "revert war" had ended minutes before admin User:Alex Bakharev blocked both of us. Now, I was blocked for 12 hrs, which really isn't that bad considering I was watching the Phillies win the World Series (yay!) and was sleeping, but Watchdogb received 72 hrs (originally shortened from 168). My point is that 3rr blocks need to be overhauled, as clearly this was a punitive action instead of preventative. I would like something like a 1 second block confirming that this was of no fault of mine and he to be unblocked.

I requested to be unblocked, but that wasn't even responded to until after my block expired. Clearly this also needs to change. And no, I'm not some newbie who is pissed off about a rule I don't like. I've been here for 10 months and am pissed off about the enforcement of a rule that can be (but is helpful in some cases) both arbitrary and ridiculous. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The timing of the response to your request for unblock is odd, but it doesn't matter if you tried to discuss on the Talk page, 3RR is almost always 3RR, unless it was purely vandalism. When it gets close to 3RR, you need to bring in some admins on the 3RR noticeboard. -t BMW c- 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In looking at the article talk page, I don't see a consensus there at all. Sometimes if a block is not reviewed quickly you could email the unblock list. JodyB _talk 20:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually on my first revert I thought it was vandalism. I really didn't need to bring in any admins into the issue, as Watchdogb and myself were perfectly able to work the problem out ourselves. My point is, no disruption was being caused, as we both thought we were right and discussed the matter, and no block was needed.

Reply to JodyB: On Watchdogb's talk page, you can see that he agreed with my reversions. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Ed, you miss the point. Revert warring on an article is harmful, regardless of how many reverts you did, or whether you agreed to it or not. The way to solve this? Don't edit war – ever. That way you won't even give the impression to an admin that you're violating 3RR (which you did). – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me simply note that the edit war had come to a peaceful conclusion before Bakharev blocked, and that blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, the two were edit warring, and violated 3RR. Edit warring is never productive. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry Nousernamesleft, that's not quite so clear. The last dit was at 23:32, the block at 23:55 and the agreement on the users talk page at 00:04. From the perspective of the admin, the block was appropriate and the edit war was still ongoing. JodyB _talk 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I still don't see why his request for unblock was declined. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why block at all? Someone is vandalising, they say they'll stop on their talk page, does it then become punitive? – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Without commenting on the subject of this thread, if somebody indicates they will stop whatever disruptive behavior they've been warned about, and they stop, a block would be punitive. But most cases aren't so clear, and judgment is used to weight whether or not the disruption will actually stop long term. - auburnpilot talk 21:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the blocking admin of this discussion as should have been done when bringing this here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So in this case, was there any reason to believe it would continue? – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this was all due to a huge misunderstanding. I originally reverted Watchdogb for removing cats from an article, thinkinking he was vandalising. I soon realised that there was a huge controversy going on categorising these as terrorist attacks. So, Watchdog rightfully reverted me. It had been referred to as a suicide bombing, which for all intents and purposes is a terrorist attack but may not be technically one, as per his comment on the talk page. It had to be cited as a "terrorist attack" itself. I reverted Watchdogb again supplying a source. All the time I thought these were uncontyrovercial on Watchdog's part, otherwise I would have never reverted at all. Apparently that source was considered unreliable, so I found another that was. The problem was solved, but we both were blocked. No disruption intended on either side, and the block was obviously punitive. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• You have an excellent point there, EditorOfTheWiki. In fact I would venture to say that you are absolutely correct- an edit based upon consensus of formerly warring parties cannot and is not (by definition) an edit war. 3RR makes a lot of sense and it's very important to hold to, but with anything there is the rule and then there is the exception to the rule. The exception here is the conflicting parties chatted about it on the article talk page, came to a consensus and in the end an edit was made reflecting consensus. This may very well exceed three reverts but it is not a violation of WP:3RR. Lastly, your frustrating at no one responding to your unblock request within the time of your block is horrifying. ArbCom has clearly stated that administrators must explain their actions within a prompt period of time and if the blocking admin- or another admin- did not even respond to your unblock request then it seems to me to be a clear violation of that ruling. Bstone (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw four reverts made both parties of the dispute. Watchdogb has long history of edit warring and just 3 days off a 1-year old 1RR restrictions. Editofthewiki is an experienced editor but without previous history of 1RR blocks. Deletion and reinsertion of terrorism-related categories is rarely a simple vandalism, everybody knows that one person's terrorism is very often another person's freedom fighting. The edit war was a sterile one - no attempts to compromise, no attempts to look for a second opinion, etc., all reverts (except the first deletion of categories made by Watchdogb) were complete reverts made by semi-automatic tools. Taking all this into account I gave 72h to Watchdogb and 12h Editofthewiki. I think it was fair. The 12h for Editofthewiki has already expired if anybody think that Watchdogb should be unblocked earlier please go ahead. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, I only pressed the undo button. Second, no attempts to compromise eh? I stongly suggest you to look into the history of the edit war before giving out blocks (and Watchdogb should be unblocked - he was not at fault either). I could care less if hes edit warred in the past - the fact of the matter is, he is currently blocked punitively. Look, I'm working on several FAs right now and do not have time for this ANI drama. Something has to be done - I suggest we allow blocked users to edit the talk page of their blocker? This edit war (if it can be described as such) diid not need admin intervention, but the whole enforcement of 3RR does. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really a matter of Alex Bakharev giving a knee-jerk block for a seeming 3RR violation without actually looking into the fact of the situation. Alex Bakharev, if you cannot issue appropriate blocks then please allow another admin to step in. ArbCom has recently ruled that admins are required to place notes on the appropriate notice boards if they are unable to objectively deal with a situation. Please respect this ArbCom ruling. Bstone (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are some pretty heavy allegations, Bstone. If you have any evidence that Alex was in some way less than objective or was careless, please present them. Otherwise, let's tone down the rhetoric. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would again suggest that everyone look at the time line. The so-called agreement was reached until after the block was implemented, at least that's the way the numbers show here. And the discussion was not fully held on the talk page of the article but on the talk page of one of the users. There's nothing wrong with that but given the immediate circumstances as the admin saw them the block was appropriate. Please remember that we have the benefit of hindsight here. JodyB _talk 02:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Listen, all: just don't put yourself in this position. Don't even rack up three reverts. Discuss, discuss, discuss. Was this an unfortunate block? Possibly, but the way to prevent it is not some overhaul of the 3RR eforcement system; it's to stop reverting, start discussing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why people can't see how this was a punitive block. If , as an experianced editor, thought it necessary for an admin to intervene, I would have asked one. But I didn't, and I was perfectly content for Watchdogb to revert me if he was prepared to explain himself. I don't want Wikipedia to mindlessly count the number of reverts someone does, if they had discussed the matter with their fellow reverter. That is the purpose of 3RR, if I we been uncooperative. But we hadn't, and Watchdogb is still blocked. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a punitive block, as there seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether the edit war had really been resolved (or, at least that a reasonable outside observer would conclude that it had been resolved) at the time of the block. I do, however, think the manner in which the block was issued was maybe a mite perfunctory, with no offense meant to Bakharev. Enforcement of 3RR is so fundamental to the way the project functions that I think there is sometimes a tendency to just rubber stamp a 3RR block if the criteria are met, without digging deeper.

I don't have a problem with the blocks, as 3RR was violated after all. I also would not have had a problem if Bakharev had chosen not to block, based on the circumstances. I think there are two lessons to be learned:

1. Even with something as simple as 3RR, not everything is always as it seems, and there may be rare cases where even a simple 3RR like this one might be unnecessary.
2. As many others have already said, if you don't want to be hit with a perfunctory 3RR block, then don't edit war.

Those are my two cents... Could Bakharev have shown leniency, given the circumstances? Perhaps. Should he be compelled to show leniency? No way. It was a fairly-made judgment call. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:82.47.101.83

I'm having a bit of trouble with the aforementioned anonymous user who refuses to accept that information garnered from an unreliable source is not suitable for Wikipedia. Any chance that someone could step in and offer a second opinion? – PeeJay 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are doing a pretty good job of educating our anonymous editor. The only thing I might suggest is the odd link to the policy in question. An example might look like: "Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability requires challenged content to be appropriately cited to reliable, third-party, published sources" or "self-published sources are not generally considered to be reliable." With links to our official policies and guidelines, the IP can read our documentation and perhaps feel less "picked" on. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the vote of confidence. I'll link the anon to the pages you suggest, but I think that their perception that we hide behind rules and regulations is what this whole thing has stemmed from in the first place. On the one hand, they do have a point, as you can use rules to support any argument if you look hard enough, but I would still appreciate a little help before the anon gives me a persecution complex! :D – PeeJay 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322

Resolved

 – Firefly322 blocked for personal attacks, YColonel Warden given 4im warning about personal attacks Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This user was discussed at WP:WQA here. My initial attempt with the WQA was to induce Firefly to refrain from calling me a troll and other uncivil comments. He was warned about his commentary here, here, and here. Of course, there are all the attempts at calming down Firefly within the WQA. Yet he continues here and here. Please assume some good faith on my part. I ran across one of Firefly's articles this week, which was going through an AfD here. Then I noticed several articles that were just not notable (in my opinion) which coincided with my desire to be more involved with the AfD process. In fact, Firefly has started several articles that I did not AfD, and thought were pretty useful (though poorly written, but that's an opinion). Since it would have seemed patronizing to make a remark on his better articles, I didn't. I believe his personal attacks against me should stop, and he should be blocked. I am most certainly not a troll. I'm lots of things, but continue to not assume good faith and calling me a troll is uncivil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be picky Gwen, but how many times does Firefly need to be warned? I see at least 3, possibly many more warnings, yet he/she continues with the personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Let me know on my talk page if it happens again, ok? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you missed one... because he removed it here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're an admin, and you've given him a warning, I've got to ask--how many warnings does he get? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. His attacks continue. So, he continues to call me a troll, pretty soon, I'm going to have to sit under a bridge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time I pleaded with my parents, à dancer sur le pont d'Avignon. They cringed, way, but did it for me anyway. Argh, I may never get over the shame of it. Blocked for 31 hours, personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen beat me to it, but not by much. How many angels can dance on a pinhead? No wait, that's not right. Anyway, I hope this answers your questions, OM. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable block, since there's a whole submerged iceberg of poor behavior of which this is the tip. It's possible that the situation could be remedied with a bit of education - Firefly322 is quicker to cite acronyms than he is to understand their meaning, and he's abrasive ([121], [122]). He seems to think that anyone making a value judgement is a "troll", when in fact the page says that calling someone else a troll constitutes a value judgement (ten points for spotting the faulty leap here - it involves [erroneous] use of [bracket substitution]). Anyone more "ingenuous" than me interested in working on this? MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Did he actually compare your comments to Mbeki? I'm so flummoxed, not a witty remark comes to my mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have blocked for 72 hours. Ok, I know, I'm flawed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked that this is his first block, so a one day block is probably appropriate. But the list of his personal attacks far exceeds anyone I've seen on here. I've been going through his contributions over the past 2 or 3 months, and the number of personal attacks couched in his links to various wiki-policy is amazing. Hopefully, he gets this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to MC. The faulty leap would be that I have friends? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just have to say that I tried to settle things peacefully both in WQA and even on their Talk page, but being told to "drop it" rather rather ... rude, shall I say. -t BMW c- 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently pointed out that Firefly seemed to be making sport of harassing admins. Fully support this block as I feel it's long overdue. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• What I've yet to see here or elsewhere, is an explanation of why OrangeMarlin keeps nominating articles started by Firefly for deletion, when these nominations are constantly found to be lacking in merit. Maybe I'm missing something but this seems to be a prima facie case of WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Why is OM not being sanctioned for this behaviour? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please immediately retract your personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Another possible answer: because those AfD nominations are not constantly found to be lacking in merit. Yet another alternative: because the nominations are being made in good faith (i.e. when the nominator states that the article subjects are not notable, he means it). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, personal attacks aren't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Colonel Warden's uncivil personal attacks, please see WP:NPA, this was not found to be lacking in merit. Oh, yes, this one seems to be under discussion. And of course, this one is still under discussion too. Oh, and Firefly has started a number of articles that I haven't touched. Because of this AfD did I choose to review his other new articles. So, you may apologize here, or how about leaving your personal and inappropriate comments precisely where they belong...in your head. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that Colonel Warden and Firefly322 have quite a history of helping and supporting one another (for examples, see their respective Talk pages and the many AfDs that are linked from them), so I suppose it's not surprising that Colonel Warden would want to offer help to Firefly322 in this situation, but I agree with the other editors here that the above post is a personal attack and should be withdrawn. The root cause seems to be a failure by Colonel Warden to assume good faith on the part of OM. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this pretty much proves that I'm not a stalker. I had no clue who Warden was/is. Now I have to look, of course.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Colonel Warden doesn't appear to be interested in retracting his personal attack above, I have issued a formal warning. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please block this WP:SPA who is POV-pushing

Twoggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA designed solely to POV-push in defiance of almost every single policy we have. The vast consensus on Talk:Aspartame controversy is that the edits were improvements, but this particular editor is simply interested in maintaining prose that had to be removed due to WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP, etc., etc., etc.

A block is in order.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Twoggle has opened a MedCab case here. As part of the ground rules for hearing the case, I ask all participants to refrain from any editing of the article until the case is concluded one way or the other. Assuming that Twoggle agrees to those terms, can s/he be kept unblocked while the case is worked through? [ roux ] [x] 07:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think mediation cases usually require that, do they? That way, sometimes if the editors keep editing, they may even reach an agreement before the mediation starts/ends for which they've applied, or some more uncontroversial parts of the article are improved. Sticky Parkin 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My view is that there's not much point in trying to mediate if they're both still able to make the edits that antagonize the other party/parties in the mediation. [ roux ] [x] 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that in another place you are asking for special consideration because of your limited Wikipedia experience, and are imposing unusual conditions here, I think it would be entirely appropriate for any party to this dispute to decline your offer to mediate, without prejudice. Looie496 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Pollina

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Maurice Doubleday

I know I could just ride that SSP discussion out, but there's no real point, and I'm just going to call duck. The article Anthony Pollina is currently being targeted by a member of his campaign (evidence provided on the SSP page), who insists on adding POV material to the article. Some of his additions are clearly copied straight off the campaign website, and other material is actually alongside citations, not that the citations actually back 100% of the claims being added. The trouble with this editor is that since his first account was warned about this, he creates a new account for every edit, so it's not feasible to communicate with him. I was hoping someone may be able to put up some hard blocks to keep him out without actually protecting the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the socks, but I've semi-protected Anthony Pollina until November 5. Toddst1 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If the link between these accounts and the Pollina campaign can be demonstrated, I can call the campaign office directly tomorrow (I'm voting in that particular race). Avruch ^T 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like done and done, but perhaps I can follow up anyway. Avruch ^T 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

zodiac template vandal

Resolved

 – Templates semi'd, Zodiac vandal stopped w/o his DRV of lulz. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

just a heads up - the zodiac template vandal (who I've seen around before) is back at 65.111.181.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). he's vandalized six templates so far, though none of the people who've reverted him have bothered to leave a warning on the IP talk page. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because he stopped after six edits and hasn't edited since (probably *because* nobody called him out). I'll semi those templates. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

User:Bookworm857158367 is suffering from a severe case of WP:OWN - he reverted my edit that Pomerania was not in East Prussia (which is correct) and my use of "probably" instead of "possibly" given that all the Romanov remains have been found and tested. Paul Austin (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, but it would be better to raise the issue on the talk page of the article before coming here. Looie496 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Closures by involved editors

• WP:AN#Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18
• User_talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure

Please see these discussions. - jc37 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are we getting a lot of these lately?? I count four questions regarding these types of closures just within the rest of this page (as of 6AM CDT 10/31/08), which leads me to believe that either a)policy needs to be clarified and/or reiterated; or b)current policy is perfectly acceptable but is being widely ignored. Either way, it seems something needs to be done/clarified/rewritten...is this one for the Village Pump, or should we keep it here??? Gladys J Cortez 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discussion closures. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The template police strike again

Resolved

In my previous incarnation as "Doc glasgow", I created a well-used template {blatantvandal} [123]. (No, I realise that gives me no rights over it). Now, that template was subsequently moved to {{Uw-bv}} - which is fine. (It seems to have been a cut and paste job without proper GFDL attribution, but we'll let that pass.) On looking at the template page yesterday, I noticed documentation stating "This template has been carefully designed based on guidelines by the user warnings project". That's simply not true (and difficult since the template pre-dates the wikiproject in question). Now, it might be pedantic, but the documentation is not good because it 1) is factually incorrect 2) more importantly, it gives the false impression that to create a useful template you need to follow someone's guidelines - you don't, you create it, and others edit it. No "rules".

I removed the erroneous documentation wholesale (it too was on a template), and when someone reverted me, I tried to "subst" the documentation to excise only the error. I left clear explanations on the talk page for my actions.[124]. Now, apparently I am breaking more "template project rules", since not only were my changes reverted, but comments on the talk page have been repeatedly removed (I am apparently not allowed to post to the talk page of the template to discuss/record the dispute - the wikiproject doesn't like that), and I've been threatened with the 3RR.

Now, I am probably a silly pedant, and I do appreciate the work other people do on templates, but the fixation with standardisation, and the insistence that the whole project must comply with guidelines drawn up by a few, and the impression that a wikiproject is some sort of "governing authority", is totally opposed to how I've always understood this project to work. I'm bringing this here because I obviously can't use the talk page of the template (and I really don't want to go to a place where my deleted comments were copied by someone under a hostile heading).

If I'm out on a limb here, I'll shut up and kowtow to the wikiproject. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuck the wikiproject. Wikiproects can't just make up "rules" and expect people to do anything but laugh at them. John Reaves 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note here, the current {{uw-bv}} was created by Gracenotes [125], the template Doc created was redirected at a TFD [126], so yes, the current bv template is based off of the discussion at WT:UTM and no, anyone can create a UTM template using any wording they want, there are no "rules" to create a template. Some people, myself included, do like to go around and tweak templates created by other people to try and make them easier to use. MBisanz ^talk 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedantic me, but Gracenotes cut and paste blatantvandal, (s)he didn't create anything. Compare [127] and [128]. They are identical. I tried to point that out, but my comments were removed somewhere.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I just noticed an active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UTM#Edit_warring_at_Template:uw-bv, what sort of administrative action is required for a discussion in progress? MBisanz ^talk 11:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What discussion. Someone removed my explanations from the template talk page, and took it to some wikiproject per their "rules" and then placed it under an accusatory heading. That's not a discussion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Anomie (talk · contribs) has just labelled me "disruptive" [129] and placed a big (guess what) template on the talk page, telling people that they shouldnot discuss things there, but at the wikiproject proscribed page. See Template talk:Uw-bv. Sigh.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 1,409 warning templates on Wikipedia, having a central place to discuss them seems like a reasonable idea... MBisanz ^talk 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure perhaps for general discusison, but it is no reason to remove comments that relate to one particular template from it's talk page. Besides which comment on a particular template which is placed on a general wikiproject, will be impossible to find later. I wished to point out errors on the template in a way that would be seen in future by those interested in the template. I watchlist various templates I use for changes, I don't watch general discussion on 1,409. Not everything is best centralised.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott, your issue though was with the documentation, which is used on several dozen pages, the community at large could benefit from a change the the basic documentation. Its not a rules situation or a stopping change, just trying to have a central discussion among lots of people about what is the best way to move forward with the system. Its been down that way since at least 2006, pre-dating the Wikiproject. MBisanz ^talk 12:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are being pedantic and disruptive. Few people watch all 482 individual templates in the uw-* system; we redirect all those talk pages to one centralized location so people with comments have half a chance of those comments actually being seen. I tried to tell you that twice, but you insisted on ignoring my advice. It's not a "rule", it's just common sense to post where people are actually watching. As for the rest, you are welcome to join in the discussion at WT:UTM. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a change, it was reverted. I tried again with a different version, it was reverted. I went to the talk page, and gave reasons. How is that disruptive? Instead of suggesting another venue, threatened me with 3RR and repeatedly moved my comments to another place under a hostile heading. I was (and am) willing to have a civil discussion about this. But you sort of made that difficult.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the pedantic and disruptive bit - however, {{Uw-bv}} was created with the edit summary "(create uw-version of the uber-cool {{bv}})". In my books, this satisfies the GFDL concerns (under the Title Page section or something) and properly leads back to the original creator. The content has now been adapted to new purposes under new claims, but the traceback to the original author is there. Doc/Scott, I think you're out on a bit of a limb. Franamax (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This Wikiproject is marvellous. I've repeatedly seen that members own the UW-series templates. Changes to templates seem verboten, as are new ones, unless the Wikiproject has approved in advance. I made {{uw-welcometest}}, a combination of two UW-permitted templates. The Wikiproject was horrified, insisting that it be moved to {{welcometest}} because it wasn't approved or endorsed by them and - get this - that the redirect so created also had to be deleted. Dawkins help us if their blocks are not all lined up in a neat row.

This type of thing is typical of several Wikiprojects, particularly the ones to do with Wikipedia's arcane internal functions: they are the Wikiproject that controls the implementation of x-function, so what is done in Wikipedia that uses x-function is therefore under their control (down even as far as where stuff is discussed, how stuff is approved for use by Wikipedia by the project and what sanctions are applied to people who knock over the blocks).

This isn't how Wikiprojects were designed to operate, but the only solution is to join them and be very active and thus be assimilated or expelled for not conforming. Meh. Not worth the trouble. Better to let them control their stuff, then at least they're being kept centralised somewhere. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I understand Scott's objection and have fixed the base documentation at [130] to better reflect template authorship. MBisanz ^talk 12:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If a WikiProject becomes a cabal with its own little set of rules, then the obvious thing to do is MfD the project. "This project should be deleted because it violates the spirit of Wikipedia and has turned into a cabal that seeks to subvert community consensus." Hopefully, the project participants will get a clue before this becomes necessary. On the other hand, I created {{uw-coi}} and could care less what other people might want to do with it. Scott, you might try harder to be apathetic. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. However given the massive numbers of people and tools that use the uw-series of templates, someone should probably take the lead and try to keep things organized and consistent. While the WP:UW project has made some group decisions that I did not personally agree with, I do however recognize that Churchill was right when he said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates are on the list of items (including date formatting and categorization) that are on constantly shifting sand, and thus not worth messing around with. Content is what matters, not this cutesie stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Content"? What an odd word... "content". Please, sir, what is this "content"? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, thank goodness we have people looking after this stuff rather pedantically. They look good; they work well; we have tools and scripts that are built on top of these, so naturally people get a bit worried when others start hacking away with a sickle on one of them - if every template "author" started re-asserting rights over their "artist" works, we would have mayhem, ugliness, and moar tool breakages. Nothing to see here, move along, per Jehochman. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I only dream of the day when my little templates User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify and User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil became "standard" and "improved" by the masses. -t BMW c- 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that it may be because the discussion was quite heated, but Anomie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have difficulty in reaching for good faith in discussions with others. Outside of the obvious poor comments made on the template talk page, I noticed this bit in reply to a civil comment posed above. I hope that people really aren't that obsessed over the template, and I guess I'll go and echo John Reaves's comment here -- they have no real method of enforcing a set standard or how a template should be displayed, and if a project devolves to a cabal, then it can be fair game to wipe it through a MFD. seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read WP:UTM in a long time, but I don't think painting then as an overpossessive cabal is doing them justice. While it might seem obscure, the goal behind the UW project was to standardize the templates a certain way. Due to the reticence of other users, we decided at that point not to replace (or redirect) the existing templates but to fork from them. If a template doesn't look like the other uw templates, it's best not to name it that way in order to keep things a bit clean. There might be a lack of fresh blood at UTM (that's the reason why I no longer contribute there, I spent too much time on that page already ;) ) so by all mean come and help them. Seriously, they are reasonable people! Or just fork, it's how open source works anyway :P -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Seicer above, I agree that Anomie`s comment is a bit over the top ... but no more so than the message he was responding to: "the very next time I see someone unjustifiably slinging around the word "vandal" or "disruption" to describe this content dispute, I'm going to block them so fast their eyes spin" [131]. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I don't consider my reply at all inappropriate considering what I was replying to (that Kralizec quoted), although I could perhaps have phrased it less sarcastically. If an admin did issue such a punitive and unconstructive block in violation of the WP:BLOCK policy, I would hope that he would have his sysop bit removed. We don't need people who can't use them appropriately to have those tools. Anomie⚔ 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking s a perfectly appropriate response to someone who interferes with good-faith discussion on a talk page and makes incivil accusations of disruption in a content dispute. You've had several admins now tell you that they think your reaction was inappropriate. Perhaps you should consider internalizing that criticism and changing your behavior rather than looking for someone else to blame. If my warning shocked you -- good. That was its intended purpose: to get people to stop worrying about their fellow editors' behavior, and focus on their own. Nandesuka (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that excuse your own apparently punitive threats to block people who have the audacity call a spade a spade and describe "edit warring" as "disruptive"? The only truly shocking thing about this entire dispute is how over the top people`s outrage has been. Well, that and the fact that it has not made WP:LAME yet. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If by "punitive threat" you mean "warning", then yes. Yes, it does. Nandesuka (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're apparently one of those people who give admins a bad name, if you feel that issuing such threats is proper behavior. I suggest you go review WP:ADMIN#Administrator conduct, and I hope I never cross paths with you again. I've had enough of this wikidrama. Good day. Anomie⚔ 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't! It's Friday, it's international Wikidrama day. Please return to your previous dramas ASAP. -t BMW c- 18:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wavelength adding internal links to Wikipedia namespace pages

Resolved

 – conflict de-escalated, parties referred to another venue to continue their discussions in a civil manner.

This is the beginning of a discussion at User talk:Wavelength#Your recent contributions.

Wavelength, I had to revert one of your See also links, and I came over here to look at your contributions. I'm surprised. I'm really not the expert on these things, but this looks like a case of WP:POINT to me (specifically, point 6). Can we talk this out over at WP:ANI? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, I am surprised by your message. I have been working through Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace, to bring more attention to as many pages as possible (especially, orphaned pages, whether or not they are tagged as such). I actually thought that my efforts would be appreciated.

I checked your contributions, and it seems that you are referring to my editing Wikipedia:Explain jargon by adding a link to Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms. I was not trying to illustrate a point. According to WP:POINT, point 6 is: "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community". Maybe I have misinterpreted policy. If that is the case, please explain it to me (as clearly as you can) so that I interpret it correctly. In what way was adding that link inappropriate?

(By the way, are you an administrator? Your link to WP:ANI seems to suggest that you are, but I could find no indication of that on your user page.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, which is why I'm bringing up WP:ANI. You're making rapid additions to policy and guidelines pages, and as one of the guys who keeps track of these things, it's frustrating when one person creates so much work for everyone else, but I'm really not the guy to be making the call whether it's "too much". All I can tell you is, it's frustrating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you find it frustrating, I apologize. I am guessing that "so much work for everyone else" refers to reverting my changes (or, at least, examining them). Can you see my perspective in anticipating people thinking, "Oh, I am glad that someone brought that page to my attention. I did not even know that it existed."?

On some (but not all) occasions when I have added links to these pages on article pages, they have been reverted with the explanation that the links were not to other article pages.

One reason for my proceeding rapidly from A to Z is to avoid forgetting related pages which I have already seen, when I see other related pages later in the alphabet.

In summary, I am perplexed as to how best to bring attention to those pages. Maybe I should abandon that plan.

--Wavelength (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(end of copied text)

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wavelength, are you prepared to accept that Dan has an objection about your changes and move into the "D" phase of WP:BRD? It seems like Wavelength was being bold and making changes to project pages and Dan wants to slow him down. Both actions are fine. Might I suggest finding some centralized place to discuss this where other people who watchlist/shepherd lots of policy pages can participate in the discussion as well? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Village Pump (Policy) is a much better place to carry this on rather than ANI. It seems that both parties are interested in reaching a consensus on this, and neither really wants to be blocked over this, so lets all just enjoy a nice, relaxing hot beverage and discuss this matter at VP, and not here, since it does not appear that admins need to be involved with this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Protonk, I am prepared to do both those things. Thank you, Jayron32, for referring me to Village pump (policy). -- Wavelength (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More Obama-Drama

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

---

L'Aquatique's proposal will be implemented. L'Aquatique will return the pages to semi today, and re-full protect them on the morning of election day thru to announcements of results, after which the user will semi-protect them again. Wizardman 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

the post above was written apparently while I was writing this. Great minds think alike, doncha know! First of all, let me just say, I'm sorry to put this on you guys- I know all the election related edit and flame warring got old about three years eleven months ago, but as a sort of semi-involved admin watching from the sidelines, there's a situation that's going to spiral out of control pretty fast if we don't put a cap on it somehow and I'm sort of unsure exactly what the right course of action is.
On Talk:Barack Obama, Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs), who was blocked earlier in the month by me for edit warring and incivility, has returned from his block and is continually adding posts to the discussion attempting to connect Obama with ACORN. He is being repeatedly reverted by Wikidemon (talk · contribs). No, here's where it gets sticky. Wikidemon is warning Locust for edit warring by recreating his posts, while others are warning Wikidemon for edit warring by repeatedly deleting said posts. Wikidemon claims that his edits don't count as edit warring because he's removing blp material. I'm inclined to agree with him, but I'd like some outside opinions. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. This might be totally wrong and against everything we believe in, but wouldn't it be nice if someone just happened to full protect Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, John McCain and Joe Biden for, oh, say... six days? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of that. Forcing consensus by making everything go thru {{editprotected}} isn't a bad way to handle articles like that. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this may just be my own bias, but I don't think consensus is the problem, rather signal to noise/disruption. Folks at the Obama and related pages are burning a ton of resources in re-explaining BLP, NPOV, RS, NOTNEWS, UNDUE, etc. very frequently as each new talking point appears (or in many cases, re-appears.) regards, --guyzero | talk 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi L'Aquatique, the further background is edits from Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) on the talkpage yesterday as seen here and here. He was warned just yesterday to not disrupt the talkpage by inserting fringe theories and BLP-violations. --guyzero | talk 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support full protection as a very last resort if there is no other way. I cannot think of any change to the major candidate pages that is so burning that it cannot wait until after the election. However, locking down articles in anticipation of future vandalism may create an unwise precedent. Please note a few things - the "warning" on my page is incorrect - I am at 0RR or 2RR depending on whether you count my BLP revert and re-closing a disruptive discussion. I am on article patrol along with 6-12 other editors at a time. We close, archive, and delete many discussions per day on the Obama talk page. If not it would be mayhem, as you can see by looking at the page as it stands or the edit history. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) marking a discusison closed, consolidating discussions, or changing headings to be more descriptive, are not reverts. Disruption has increased several-fold in the past few days and I don't know if we can hold this back. We are, as I note on the talk page, up to 3-5 blocks per day on that page, mostly for vandals - I try to keep up with them and put them on the log at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, but I'm sure I miss quite a few. Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you'll be constantly watching these pages and reverting the vandalism floods? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do my best at Barack Obama, but one non-admin isn't enough, and even six are not enough. Even on article patrol we try to be on best behavior and not to violate 3RR or article probation terms. It's like being a policeman who has to wear white gloves and a tophat all the time. It's harder for me on Sarah Palin, the other big problem article, because unless you follow it minute by minute it is sometimes hard to tell who the troll is, or what is a legitimate question / proposal versus what is a fringe theory that has already been dismissed ten times. Some problem editors have a way of mimicking the accusations of the regular editors.Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

At least there's no risk of any of those articles appearing as a Featured Article on November 5th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Unfortunately, there has been so much vandalism like these gems[132][133][134][135], and so many people reading the article, that some readers have been rightfully appalled and left messages on the talk page asking what is going on. You can't revert fast enough to avoid some people being hurt. And then there is the constant trolling on the talk page. It's sure to get worse. At the very least, more admins watching these pages through the election would be very helpful. Thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not hearing all the opposition I thought I would get to that little proposal of mine. We could even narrow it down to just Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, the two major problem articles. The real question: would it solve more problems than it would cause? I don't know the answer. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that extremely high profile BLPs (US presidential candidates days from election obviously qualify) lend themselves poorly to the Wiki Way. It wouldn't take much bad luck to end up with a PR catastrophe on our hands. I would support a week-long protection for all four, personally; having to use {{editprotected}} for a few days is not that onerous a price to pay to protect the encyclopedia and the foundation. — Coren ^(talk) 04:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless something dramatic and unexpected happens, I don't see what new information warrants adding until after the election. Protection is a good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't have to tell me twice. I'm going to go make sure there are no problems with current revisions and protect them, I guess. Of course, it will invariably be the wrong version, but I'm only human after all. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If, as it seems, the level of vandalism is so high that it's impractical to keep up with it by reverts, then protection for a short time will be needed. It's unfortunate. I would recommend protecting all 4 of the candidate pages, if any 1 of them is protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think that a full "this page is protected due to vandalism" template (not a small icon) is worthwhile for these. They are protected for a short time, and only because of heavy vandalism. So we should be up front about this, so that editors who wonder why they can't edit have some clear explanation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with both your sentiments, my dear MzM. Moving on, however, I have fully protected Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama (John McCain was already fully protected) with an expiry time of 6 days (which may need to be tweaked so that it doesn't expire until after the election depending on time zones) and left notes of explanations on all the talk pages. Next, I will add the protection tags.

In other news, I just recieved a rather angry note from User:Thegoodlocust claiming that I'm a cabalist and an all around evil person. Whoops... I just accidentally deleted it. Oh well. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Thank you for protecting those articles through the election, L'Aquatique. People should note that these are the candidate's biographies, and nothing significant is likely to change in the next week regarding their lives. If it does, then {{editprotected}} works just fine. Some of the trolling and vandalism is so appalling that this is for the best - for the articles and for Wikipedia. Note that the articles about the election have not been protected, for example United States presidential election, 2008, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008‎, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008‎, and others. They can continue to be updated with current events. The bios seem to be the worst hate and vandalism magnets, unfortunately. ~ priyanath ^talk 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through all 4 articles alphabetically and changed the template to pp-vandalism, not small. This should make it clear why the articles are protected - because of heavy ongoing vandalism - and it also tells editors how to request changes using editprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is undoubtably the best thing to do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that full protection seems wise, given the circumstances. I also think Coren is correct with the comment that wide open editing on these incredibly heavily trafficked articles could open us up to a last minute public relations disaster. I wonder how many people are out there would potentially allow Wikipedia content to influence whether they would or would not vote for a particular candidate? I bet there's more than a few... In any event, again, full protection, I believe is best, especially given what we've seen on the Palin and Obama articles thus far.   user:j    (aka justen)   05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not worth the endless BLPvios that will surely be happening at an even faster pace as E-Day approaches. Good job, LAQ. [ roux ] [x] 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To prevent needless drama, accusations of elitism, and/or a shit-storm like around the time Sarah Palin's VP candidacy was announced, I would like to request that administrators as a body pledge not to make any non-trivial edits to those pages without gaining consensus on the talk page. (IMHO, noting on the pages who won the election, as well as updating the infoboxes, would be trivial, since all or most of the details should be placed in the article about the election). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

CBM: You slapped full protection on John McCain and claimed it was because of "heavy ongoing vandalism". That's totally bogus. There isn't any "heavy ongoing vandalism" to this article. Kindly revert to the semi-protection that was operating satisfactorily before you needlessly interfered. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I support locking up all four articles through November 5. However, the huge tag is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well. We have been through this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Sarcasticidealist fully protected the John McCain article over 2 days ago. CBM just modified the tag.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the lockdown is totally bogus. There is NO "heavy vandalism". But it stands to reason that our pet McCain campaign worker would support a tactic that echoes his own efforts to obstruct further additions regardless of the fact that this stated reason for the lockdown is a lie. — Writegeist (talk)

I have no connection to the McCain campaign, and I have the same stance toward all 4 articles in question. Perhaps Writegeist is projecting.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag states "This page is currently protected from editing to deal with vandalism"; it doesn't mention that there has been heavy vandalism, the inference I draw that is that it seeks to prevent future vandalism.

(Also no connection with the McCain campaign; if you want to know what my politics are you can check this edit)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Flag: I did not, as you imply, say that the tag cited "heavy vandalism". I simply pointed out that CBM invented "heavy ongoing vandalism" as justification for the lockdown. (See CBM's unequivocal statements above: (1) [The tag] should make it clear why the articles are protected - because of heavy ongoing vandalism and (2) They are protected...because of heavy vandalism.) Certainly where the McCain and Palin BLPs are concerned that's a figment of CBM's imagination. See also the tag at the top of John McCain talk: John McCain is temporarily protected from editing until November 5, 2008 because it has been subject to heavy vandalism. There was no "heavy vandalism", "ongoing" or otherwise. Ergo the tag was applied for bogus reasons and should revert to semi-protection. — Writegeist (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're quite correct; I hadn't seen the talk page tag when I made that comment. I retract my comment re: the tag not mentioning heavy vandalism.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Preserving thread

I'm preserving this thread linked from the protection log with a fake timestamp for transparency's sake. The bot will automatically archive it after the election is over.--chaser - t 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection notices

The huge protection notices are absolutely hideous, and a huge disservice to our readers. For every person with an account who wonders why they can't edit the article (nevermind that it says why when clicking the "view source" link) we have hundreds, if not thousands, of readers who will have to scroll down a maintainance templace with absolutely no relevance to the content they're interested in. Folks, we need to grow up and recognize that wikipedia is just not for the active editors. There is a silent majority of readers that outnumber the editors a hundred times and we shouldn't needlessly force them to start with scrolling down or reading irrelevant internal nonsense on some of our most visible pages. The large notices have a place for articles locked down due to a content dispute, to warn that the content is in dispute, but that is not the case here! A small padlock icon is definitely sufficient. henrik•talk 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I agree 100%. The huge tag at the top of each of the articles is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well, and anyone would understand what's happening from reading the tag at the top of each of the talk pages. The McCain article has already been locked up for a couple days without using the huge tag at the top of the article. This issue arose previously, and it was decided to keep the Palin article frozen but get rid of the huge tag at the top.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually with respect to the previous actions on Palin, the banner was removed in the absence of consensus by an admin that ignored the discussion on the issue and ultimately ended up in Arbitration over their reckless behavior with respect to Palin's article. It is no way a precedent that I would follow for only using padlocks. Dragons flight (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It was still an excellent suggestion by New York Brad, and in fact the suggestion was fully implemented without subsequent reversion.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because only a fool will edit war on an article already in arbitration, in my opinion it was a bad decision and many people preferred the large tag. Dragons flight (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the article was locked up for many days, while changes were made by consensus, and there was never consensus to reinstall the huge tag.[136]Ferrylodge (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That discussion didn't affect the big tag. It wasn't until later that Jossi removed it (without participating in or even being aware of the discussion about the tag). In my opinion there was never consensus to remove the tag. I might concede that there was "no consensus" on the issue, but I don't believe your side had consensus. Dragons flight (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's water under the bridge. We've provided links to the relevant discussion. I think Henrik makes some excellent points below; e.g., unregistered users have been unable to edit these articles for months so why would they suddenly find a huge tag useful? I'm telling you, the huge tags will reduce the number of people who read these articles by at least a factor of ten, which would be a huge shame given all the work that's gone into writing these articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, a factor of 10 is probably an exaggeration. But they're still ugly :-) henrik•talk 08:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the large tag to point out that these articles are being subjected to unusual treatment is a benefit to our readers. We want our readers to be aware that these articles are being subjected to different standards than normal articles. Dragons flight (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of readers will see the tag, and read no further. The tag is hideous, and says the article's been vandalized. We are talking about four Wikipedia articles that have typically been getting (collectively) over 250,000 hits per day, and that number will increase dramatically during the next few days. So let's get this right, please. Editors will easily figure out what's going on, from the tags at the tops of the talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we should use another {{pp-xxx}} tag instead. I'd put {{pp-dispute}} there, because most readers will understand that those articles are subject to dispute shortly before an election and will not be scared by those tags. But most new readers have no idea what a talk page is or why they should open it. They want to read information and maybe correct things and they should be told why they cannot do so. We have to think about thousands of anon or newbie readers that do not use WP usually. Regards SoWhy 08:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These articles have been constantly semi-protected for months already, so newbie readers have never been able to correct things directly. The only difference now is that non-administrator established editors can't edit them. The only people not being able to edit now are those who have auto-confirmed accounts, and they can be expected to find their way to to talk pages. I do not understand why restricting auto-confirmed users merits a huge banner, while restricting anonymous users routinely is done with a small icon. {{pp-dispute}} is not the right answer either, because there is no significant dispute. These protections are mainly a technical measure because the regular editors can't keep up with the (expected) traffic. henrik•talk 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the reader likely to be interested in that? I'd wager a significant amount that the average reader is more interested to read the biography of the candidate in question than learning about wikipedia internal debates on article protection standards. While protection policy and article standards are interesting, it is not sufficiently interesting to occupy the whole first paragraph of such high profile articles. Again, the protection is a technical measure to solve the problem of our inability to effectively deal with the vandalism, not a warning that the content is thought to be unreliable (which the current notices certainly imply by saying "[this] in not an endorsement of the current version"). henrik•talk 08:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Most readers have at least vague idea how Wikipedia operates to the extent that it reflects an open editing philosophy. If prominent articles are being treated differently than those expectations suggest, then I think readers ought to have those expectations corrected. I am open to discussing a different presentation to the message box though, if you have some suggestions for what would be a better way to explain this particular protection. Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered users have been unable to edit these articles for months so why would they suddenly find a huge tag useful?Ferrylodge (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection is still a good approximation of the open editing process. Virtually all active editors are autoconfirmed and even new editors can quickly obtain that status. Full protection is different since it hands control to only a fraction of editors and generally changes the dynamic of how pages are edited. I'll assume that most readers will not be editors regardless of the protection status, but most readers still have an idea (in broad terms) of how articles are written and protection changes that. It is that change is process that I think should be announced. Incidentally, you assume protection is a turn off to large numbers of people. You ignore the other possible position. Some people will see that an article is protected and assume that it therefore is less likely to contain vandalism and hence more trustworthy. It isn't obvious to me that announcing a protection status is inherently a large net negative in public perception. Dragons flight (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These protections, (as well as the Sarah Palin wheelwar) are really a new and evolving form of protection for us. We're discovering that some articles have become so high-profile that even semi-protection is insufficient, but we haven't really evolved the tools or policies needed to deal with those cases yet. I guess the best we can do is just try what seems best at the time :-)

My main problem is the size and length, plus that the standard template message isn't really suited to this particular case. As a compromise, could we craft a one-line message, with a smallish lock that explains that the articles are locked down and a link to a page with further details? henrik•talk 08:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm bowing out to get sleep (I'm in Connecticut). I can barely spew out one line of text.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect I'll want more like 2 or 3 lines but I open to shortening the message from the 5 lines it currently displays in my browser. Dragons flight (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What about using the small icon in conjunction with the new Mediawiki edit notices? That way, readers don't see the large template, while those who choose to edit can see a detailed explanation of what is going on. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Support Ckatz's suggestion, above. I was going to suggest alternate phrasing for the template drafts below, but edit-conflicted with what looks to be a way better idea. Sorry for being a mediawiki noob, can you point to an example? thanks, --guyzero | talk 09:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit notices are only shown to people with permission to edit. In the case of fully protected pages, that is admins only. Other people who click "view source" will never see them. Dragons flight (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is true, otherwise it would have been a good idea. henrik•talk 09:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah bummer =( --guyzero | talk 09:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize they had that restriction. Another thought - we use the collapsed-form templates at the bottom of articles; what about using a similar technique at the top? The title line could simply state that the article is protected, with a link to expand it if readers/editors want more details. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Drafts

In the spirit of the above, here is my draft for custom notice. Dragons flight (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along this line, where the full policy, {{editprotected}} and other details are explained on the talk page or a subpage. I am of course open to tweaking the wording, I am sure that could be improved. henrik•talk 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One advantage of having the details on a separate, but easily accessible link, is that it will allow us to explain everything in full without being constrained by space. It should allow us to make a more accessible introduction to wikipedia protection and editing than what could be done in the box. henrik•talk 09:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm back! Just for a little while. I still think ordinary people will not understand what "protected" means, and the word "vandalism" will be scary. How about....

Ferrylodge (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you and henrik want to do the see details "here" thing, then I would like to see what text you intend to provide at that destination as well. Dragons flight (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the "here" could just be the top of the respective article talk page? There's a huge protection tag at the top of each of the talk pages right now, which is fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, that is of course a reasonable request. Again, feel free to edit away on this. henrik•talk 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest perhaps replacing the first paragraph "While normally any Wikipedia article is open for editing by anyone, we've protected this article from editing to deal with vandalism due to the US Election", above? thanks, --guyzero | talk 10:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A collapsible box was an excellent idea, how about this: henrik•talk 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just have seen the four-way lockdown. (I'm the leading editor at Joe Biden and co-leading editor at John McCain.) I don't like it – we made it through the long, heated Obama-Clinton primary without having to resort to this (certainly the Clinton article, where I'm also the leading editor, was never locked down), and I don't see anything that's made it necessary here. But I can see I'm in the minority and that the decision has already been made. I strongly agree with others that the current huge tag is gross and unnecessarily throws all the current content of the articles into doubt. It doesn't even make sense – how could vandalism cause us to not be able to endorse a version of the article?? We revert vandalisms to good versions all the time! It makes us sound like we have no clue about what we are doing, which is not the case. I don't care that much which of these alternative tags you pick above, but please put them into place as soon as possible. The current tags make me feel like all the work I have done here is being disrespected. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that if we DO protect these articles, (and I am totally WITH Wasted Time R. Premptively protecting the articles is kind of the Bush Doctrine approach to Wikipedia, and we know how well THAT has worked out...) we should ONLY semi-protect them. Semi-protection will stop the sort of "drive-by" vandalism that we expect given the election, and any other vandalism can be dealt with by swift account blocks. At worst, if a whole slew of autoconfimed accounts shows up to attack the article, it will serve as sockpuppet bait; we can cause sockfarms to reveal themselves, which may be a good thing. There doesn't seem to be any real benefit from full protection here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron--semi-protection would eliminate 99 percent of the problem edits (which seem to be drive-by vandalism from new accounts). I do think a tag is needed, though--something like this: Blueboy96 12:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Henrik has put in the show/hide tag proposed above. Thanks, that's a big improvement over what had been there. And I'll never criticize Henrik, given how many times I've used the wonderful page view count tool! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. http://stats.grok.se/ is a great tool. Thanks Henrik.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As Wasted Time R noted, I've put in the less obtrusive collapsible protection notice on all four candidate's pages for now. You can find the template at {{pp-uselection2008}} (swiftly copyedited and improved by User:Kane5187). I have no strong opinion on the issue of protection itself, but my guess is that it could probably have been handled with shorter full protections as needed. Then again, a lot of people will read these, and even vandalism for a few seconds will be seen by a lot of people. henrik•talk 12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to register my support for this version of the tag. And also to register my full agreement with Dragons flight that the padlock icon is insufficient. Users of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, deserve to know that why these articles are being treated differently. Mike R (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These articles should not be under full protection for any length of time. Semi-protection is clearly called for and full protection can be used for short spikes of vandalism by autoconfirmed accounts but there will be so many experienced editors watching these articles, locking them down for a week or more will stir up more harm than help to their content. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain article was already full protected until after the election, since 2008-10-27. Editors above were reporting that they were unable to keep up with the vandalism at the Obama page, which was semiprotected. It seemed very unlikely to me that the Obama article would make it to Nov. 4 without being full protected; at most, it might stay unprotected another day or two. When the people watching a page start to burn out from the effort, that's when protection becomes more viable. And I think there is a relatively clear benefit to treating all 4 of the election biographies equally in terms of protection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Red diaper baby, MILF, Trollop and a string of other articles have also been dragged into this and some of them have been semi protected, I suspect some vandals will get more inventive in the next few days. But I do think we owe it to the IP editors to patrol and action the talk pages when we semi protect, this has worked quite well for the Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row saga and also a few weeks ago when the LHC was switched on. ϢereSpielChequers 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain article was already full protected until after the election: Only sort of. Yes, the expiry date was after the election, but the admin who imposed it had said he intended to lift it sooner, as soon as the particular conflict he imposed it for was over. He was in fact about to lift it this morning, before noticing that this new decision had been made to protect it.

I protest this decision, especially since it was imposed with no discussion at all on the talk pages of the affected articles. I don't know what it's been like at Obama, but at Palin and McCain there's been lots of content dispute but no significant vandalism. Whatever vandalism there has been was quickly reverted by the many editors, from all sides, who are watching the pages; no need for uninvolved vandalism patrollers. Seriously, I've seen less vandalism at Sarah Palin than at Cole & Dylan Sprouse. -- Zsero (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to all this is below, I just wanted to throw out some kudos to the folks working on templates above. The collapsable ones look great and definitely have my !vote. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 17:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. While normally any wikipedia article is open for editing by anyone, we've been forced to restrict these pages until after the election. Really? There is no consensus for such a draconian measure... who is "we"? Certainly not the Wikipedia community, but a few people that have rushed this through. I am restoring the normal templates in these pages. I am removing that text from the template, as it is misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed these new tags. Prevention of possible vandalism is not a valid reason for protecting an article: protecting is not to be used preemptively. See WP:PROTECTION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think just taking off the tags is the answer - either we accept this pre-emptive protection and leave the new tags on so this exception to normal Wikipedia practice is explained, or we go back to semi-protection and have no tag other than the lock icon which is standard policy. Full protection without explanation adds to confusion, I think. And I don't see consensus for full protection here. Tvoz/talk 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC) And here's a reason why removing the tag is not a good idea. Tvoz/talk 07:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do think that taking off the tags is a big improvement, whether or not the articles continue to be full-protected. The new tags devised by Henrik et al. were pretty good, but I do think Jossi is correct to go with the little padlock symbols instead. The respective article talk pages can have huge tags at the top, but the articles themselves really should not, IMHO. Thank you Jossi.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also concur with Jossi's action to remove the narrative reason on the main article, regardless of whether a decision returns these to semi-protection. The narrative, while accurate, may have conveyed an unintended "we do not trust you" WP position, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, it also understated the vast good work WP editors have done on these articles for many months. Anyone who attempts to edit the page will immediately realize they can't, and I can't imagine any previously uninvolved serious contributors will surface in the waning days prior to the election who won't be familiar with the concept of the talk page. Regardless of full-protection, should a significant event occur in the next few days, we can be certain there will be many editors ready to collaborate on its inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I think we are giving Wikipedia a little too much influence in US politics. We may still be fodder for The Colbert Report but I don't see a mistake in an article swinging the election. Be that as it may, Jossi is right. Here is how things will play out: editors on the talk page should, as always, work to build consensus for NPOV edits. A few weeks ago I was active at the Palin article and I saw people who clearly disagreed, profoundly, reach compromises, so this is not a pipe-dream. If there is a profound division among editors as to whether the article violatres NPOV (which is the main issue now), here is how it will play out: there will be an edit war and then someone will have to protect the page for a day, or block an editor or two for violating 3RR, to give other editors time to work out a stable compromise. This is the most interference by an admin that I can imagine. We certainly have no rules that editing stops x number of days before an election. Anyone who wants to can propose a new policy and we can debate it, but in the meantime we follow the policy we got, as Jossi says. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the election bios stay full protected through the election

It looks like there is some divided opinion about the protection. On one hand,

• reports near the top of the thread show that editors who follow the Obama page say it is becoming too much to keep up, and the McCain page had been full protected for a couple days.
• there is a benefit to keeping the 4 pages in sync with regard to protection.
• it's a reasonable guess that vandalism rates will go up before the election.

On the other hand

• people are also reporting that the McCain/Palin pages had less vandalism than the Obama pages
• there is a benefit to not fully protecting pages that don't need it.

It would be helpful for uninvolved editors to weigh in, to get a better sense of the overall opinion about the balance between these conflicting concerns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect per my comments above. Blueboy96 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All of these articles had been semi-protected for months. You seem to have missed the fact that we are talking about excessive activity that was already not stopped by semi-protection. Dragons flight (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If only because perception is reality in politics, protecting uniformly is the only reasonable method of avoiding appearance of bias. Spending a few days without being able to directly edit four articles is far from onerous, and a reasonable method of protecting Wikipedia's reputation. — Coren ^(talk) 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Full-protect. Anything that should or need to be inserted during this time can be done through the usual method. BLP policy needs to be respected, the likely surge in vandalism is utterly avoidable, as is another ArbCom case. Additionally, the article probation that we pulled through isn't going to be effective on its own during this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  I concur with Ncmvocalist and Coren. Tomer^talk 16:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's overoptimistic to expect that the vandalism is going to decrease immediately after the election. If anything, I'd expect it to ramp up for at least a few days afterward. —KCinDC (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that it would be protected during the election and for a few days following it - seems sensible for the exact reasons you've noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think this is probably unnecessary at the moment. Barack Obama has been getting 30-40 edits per day, while John McCain was seeing about a 10-20 per day. In my opinion, those levels are manageable with the conventional level of watchlist attention that high profile articles get. For comparison, when Sarah Palin was initially locked it was getting 500-700 edits per day! That's more than an order of magnitude higher. I agreed with locking Palin at that time, but I don't think there is a crisis here that requires locking these now. Maybe such a problem will develop as the election comes closer, but I think that this protection is overly preemptive at the moment. Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support full protection firstly, what seems to be missed is the fact that semiprotection will not help- these articles have been semi-ed for a long time which apparently did not fix the situation. When I decided to protect my decision was based on a wide variety of things- firstly common sense that these articles would be under incredible dispute considering the current climate in the US and indeed the world. I also had reports from vandal fighters on the page that it was getting overwhelming, they couldn't handle it, and that was in many ways the straw that broke the camels back. Wikipedia is a big deal, I think sometimes people forget that we have a ton load of presence in the greater world and it's important that we show a good face. We're the third hit on google for search string "Barack Obama" and the first that is not run by him. I'm sure the situation is similar for the other three. People are coming here for information about the candidates, information that they may use to make an extremely important decision in a few days and it's up to us to make sure that they get the best quality information they can get. If that means restricting editing on these pages, so be it. There's so much more at stake here than editing priveledges. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  these articles have been semi-ed for a long time which apparently did not fix the situation. What situation? There was no significant vandalism problem on Sarah Palin or John McCain. Lots of content dispute, but not vandalism. Semiprotection clearly was working, and there was no "situation". John McCain had been fully protected for a short time over an content dispute, but that was about to be lifted when you came along and slapped your blanket protection, because of nonexistent vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• John McCain is also the third google hit. VP candidates' articles are both the first google hits for their names.--chaser - t 18:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, chaser. Zsero, even though there was less of a problem on John McCain, the decision was made [not by me] to protect all of them in order to avoid the appearance of bias. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not yet I understand the desire for pre-emptive protection, but aside from the wiki way issues, there was a previous thread that concluded with a number of non U.S. admins keeping an eye on things, I believe.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• support full protection, even though I would rather not - I think that the onus of blp concerns out weighs the 'any one can edit' philosophy, through the election, due to the past experience on these articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support full protection through the election... and it wouldn't hurt to have more eyes on the more prominently linked articles as well--If vandals can't trash the main candidate articles, they may just switch targets rather than desisting. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The page view stats aren't as severe as they were for Sarah Palin, who got 3.5 million page views over two days, but that was four days before we full protected it. When that finally happened on 3 September, her article was at about 500k per day, far higher than Obama's current 80-150k per day. The other candidate articles are getting still fewer page views than Obama's (McCain 40-87k, Palin 60-75k, and Biden 25k or less).--chaser - t 18:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support full protection because of the obvious BLP concerns which are heightened in this final week up to the elections because of the increased scrutiny that the public will undoubtedly have on these articles. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Note, since both McCain and Obama are featured articles, there is a proposal at WP:TFA/R (WT:TFAR) to run them side-by-side on the main page on Nov 4 or 5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - These articles are being closely watched by many many Wikipedians. I think the articles are manageable, and it goes against the wiki spirit. Also, the articles may be put on the main page, and not sure fully protection is good in that situation. Semi-protection is fine. If anything, I think we should think about limited use of Wikipedia:Flagged revisions for very high profile articles prone to vandalism and BLP violations, and possibly for featured articles, which the McCain and Obama articles are. --Aude (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• No, there's no need for full protection. These types of situations are exactly why semi-protection was created. These articles are very closely watched which limits the BLP concerns. It's the BLP's that are not watch very closely that are the big problem. RxS (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Protect - Last thing we need on the even of the US election is someone, somehow sneaking in "Candidate X was caught propositioning a male prostitute on Monday" and for even 1 novice user to read/believe it and spread it through R/L -t BMW c- 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I brought this exact topic up on AN just two days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Planning ahead for U.S. elections on Nov. 4; the consensus there seemed to be that protection above and beyond what is already in place was unnecessary. Further, User:Risker is planning a special watchlist for concerned editors that will contain the pages most likely to be hit by vandalism and over-eager result announcers. As the initiator of the protection idea, I obviously will not complain; as many have said above, I do not see what vastly important information will surface right then that cannot wait until the next day, or be handled by an editprotected request. However, many others disagreed, and the slippery slope argument has some weight (see particularly Pedro's response in the AN thread); I will bow to any larger consensus that is established. GlassCobra 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All these articles need to be unprotected (semi protection is OK). This is Wikipedia, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with jossi: semi when needed, but otherwise unprotected. Attraction to the articles in question over the next week will be detrimental but also will probably gain us two or three good new editors for the price. Worth paying, IMHO. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support full protection. I am convinced by L'Aquatique's argumentation above. Given the real world importance of Wikipedia for background information and the traffic they get, keeping these articles accurate for every second of the next few days outweighs the drawbacks of the lost editing opportunities. henrik•talk 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• No I understand the good faith worries but full protection will harm content. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Full Protect We have enough to do with our usual vandals. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia loses a great deal of credibility, and probably a net loss of new editors, when people looking for information about Barack Obama read on Wikipedia that he's a "half-monkey", "dumb nigger", and that his religion is "Islam". See the comments from disgusted readers on the talk page, and you'll see that this type of vandalism can't be reverted quickly enough. Keep the articles protected, please. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Blueboy, Dragons, Zsero, Tznkai, Aude, RxS, jossi, Redvers, Gwen Gale et al. L'Aquatique, panic-stricken by false reports of vandalism that he/she didn't bother to verify vis à vis McCain and Palin, has grossly mishandled the situation, reacting as if to a major crisis when in fact the articles were already perfectly under control and practically devoid of vandalism. His/her "vandalism" argument is totally specious. Which, if he/she had bothered to check, he/she could have learned for him/herself. Really, we must hold administrators to higher standards than this. Otherwise--as in this instance--they just waste everyone's time. — Writegeist (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, would you mind commenting on actions, not people, and maybe trying to assume good faith? Your portrayals of me as a crooked, power-hungry alarmist are so blatantly false it makes me laugh,, and frankly it's growing tiresome. If you disagree with the protection, fine, state your opinion by all means. But attacking me doesn't solve a damn thing. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique: I...had reports from vandal fighters on the page that it was getting overwhelming, they couldn't handle it, and that was in many ways the straw that broke the camels back.

Writegeist: L'Aquatique, panic-stricken by false reports of vandalism that he/she didn't bother to verify vis à vis McCain and Palin, has grossly mishandled the situation, reacting as if to a major crisis when in fact the articles were already perfectly under control and practically devoid of vandalism. His/her "vandalism" argument is totally specious. Which, if he/she had bothered to check, he/she could have learned for him/herself. Really, we must hold administrators to higher standards than this. Otherwise--as in this instance--they just waste everyone's time.

So where precisely, L'Aquatique, is the falsehood in my representation of your reckless and ill-considered action? By your own admission the McCain and Palin articles were locked purely on the say-so of people whose stories you evidently did not check (otherwise you would have known that they were untrue). Whichever way you look at it, this is shamefully inept administration. Without it, we wouldn't be in this absurd situation. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be collegial here. The reports of vandalism were for the Obama page, and included diffs. The McCain page was already protected. Quite a few other editors supported the protection before L'Aquatique made it. There's no reason to speak as if the protection was done with no discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-Protect There is no need to stiffle editing by logged in users. Much of what is being called vandalism are actually Good Faith edits by users who feel that the pages are too biased and don't cover every point of view. Each of the four articles have packs of editors determined to keep as much of what they call un-biased and recent content out of the articles and are attacking any and all editors who oppose their views.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• The pages were already semi-ed, just so you know. : ) ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It may become necessary to full protect them (Let's face it; a good percentage of the users here don't seem to have the brains God gave fish), but we shouldn't pre-protect them. If things go shitstorm, I'm sure there are more than enough people watching them to ensure it's a very short one. HalfShadow 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support full protection the articles are getting an very high level traffic (Sarah Palin has received up too 823.5k page views a day) and as the election comes even closer it will likely spike again, coinciding with a dramatic increase of POV-pushers who's edits, even if they are reverted within minutes, will still been seen by thousands of people. I know the we do not usually preemptively protect articles but as these people will be using out information for such an important purpose I think it is imperative that the article remain stable. Icewedge (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  Agree: This is politics 101. If you can say McCain is a moron for free on Wikipedia, then you very definitely should do so until someone at Wikipedia prevents you from using their website as a political tool. That someone would be us. That said, let's leave Palin unprotected, since that is *ahem* her official position. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  Agree: It is quite predictable that POV pushers will be coming through in the next few days, full protection should significantly stymy their efforts. Rweba (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose first of all, we are a wiki. The higher the profile of the article, then the GREATER the reason to maintain the wikiness as that's how we recruit users. Policy is to keep high profile articles open, that's why the articles on the main page (which receive higher vandalism) are never locked. If you want to change that policy, get a super-majority consensus. Secondly, any bad stuff put in these articles will be quickly reverted BECAUSE lots of people see them, thus there is LESS need to protect, not more. why special leading for the US elections, basically this is more US systemic bias and should be resisted. Are people sick of reverting vandalism here? Well, unwatch. At the point that no-one can be bothered reverting the vandalism, then we can consider protection.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that protecting these articles fully would be a very bad idea. Wikipedia is going to be very closely watched by the media over the coming election, look at the media attraction Sarah Palin has had already. With the high profile of the articles in question, any vandalism would last seconds, especially if you have people who'se huggle is set to just watch those articles (I think you can do that). Wikipedia has often gotten praise in the past for being very very up-to date on major current events, and the coming week is going to be a brand new challenge for wikipedia as we know it, it was nowhere near as significant last election. This is a chance for us to show the world that wikipedia can do, and we want the media to see us at our absolute best. Who knows, if we pull this off, perhaps it'll be Barack/McCain vs Jimbo for the wikipedia party come 2012--Jac16888 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose full protection. You may as well just delete and salt the articles until after the election and force people to derive their opinions of the candidates from outside sources. More than anything, however, I fear the precedent this sets, as before long, we'll be full-protecting any candidate immediately prior to an election. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Indefinite semi-protection for editing; full protection for moving. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• strongly OPPOSE protection.I have a BIG problem with the improper "cloak of silence" that has desceded from above over these 4 articles. These articles have been, and would have continued to be, instantaneously protected by the legion of good faith editors that have worked dillegently to create quality. This so-called protection is an afront to every editor involved and should be reverted ASAP. It is a clear case of aggressive over-reaction and censorship and calls into question the good faith qualities and abilities of those same editors. What should have happened was a conversation with everyone involved. As soon as protection ceases..that conversation can begin.--Buster7 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose full protection. I had high hopes that John McCain could get through the election without it. The recent incident was largely due to an edit war over a peripheral biographical point that several editors who don't normally work on the article much got into a slugfest over. Vandalism on McCain has never been unmanageable. The Joe Biden article has recently gone several days without any edits to it, it certainly doesn't need full protection. Sarah Palin has edit wars more than vandalism. That leaves Barack Obama, which I believe has always been subjected to numerous incidents of gross, disturbing vandalism (the second place finisher in that category would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, but we never had to give full protection to that either during the long heat of their primary battle). The concern over WP's public image with these high-profile articles is legitimate, but I believe that concern should always be there. It bothers me when I land on one of these and some sicko has changed it, whether that happens in March or November. So we really need the "stable versions" WP scheme in place for articles like this, so the public never sees the vandalism. But with the system we have now, I don't see why these days are more sacred than any other days. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A tally, a counting, a status report as to where we stand.....as of approx 1:45 31 OCT (UTC)...

• 14 EDITORS OPPOSSED
• 11 EDITORS SUPPORT
• 2 EDITORS FOR SEMI-PROTECT
• 1 EDITOR STILL ON THE FENCE>>>Glass Cobra...--Buster7 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not the count I got. Assuming that users who support semi-protection don't support full protection, here is what I got:

• Users who support full protection: L'Aquatique, Barneca, Wikidemon, Coren, BaseballBugs, Carl, priyanath, J.delanoy, J, Ferrylodge, Roux, Ncmvocalist, Tomer, Rocksanddirt, Jclemens, MBK004, BMW, Toddst1, Icewedge, Hiberniantears (20)
• Users who don't support full protection: Writegeist, WastedtimeR, Jayron32, Gwen Gale, Zsero, Blueboy96, Dragons flight, Tznkai, RxS, jossi, Redevers, Jojhutton, HalfShadow, ScottMacDonald, Jac16888, Mendaliv, MZMcBride, Buster7 (18)
• That said, we do not determine consensus by straw polls. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is ludicrous, L'Aquatique. You protected these articles not in accordance of WP:PROTECTION. Where is the vandalism that you claim? I see no evidence of that. Please explain why did you protect these articles, and why are not you unprotecting given the lack of consensus for your actions? Protection of articles cannot be applied preemptively.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not fully protecting, but rather semi-protecting. I don't know if any of you were here in 2004, but the election then was a horrible time for vandalism and POV-pushing. The history of John Kerry from the period is interesting -- we didn't have semi-protection then, so had to resort to full protection on that article on October 28 (the election was on November 2). With semiprotection we can stave off the drive-by rock-throwers. It's times like this that I wish we had another level of protection -- three months of account history and two hundred edits, or something -- but full protection I think sends the wrong message. We avoid full-protecting the featured article as well, and I think a similar concept applies. If it is a very high profile article, you may still edit, -- but perhaps with some additional guarding in the form of needing to have an established account. Antandrus (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me take this opportunity to make a point. A very important point. A point that is abused time and time again. When is consensus met and who decides?. I only counted from where Carl established a starting point: a point where carl, wisely, said "Let's see where we stand"...and he asked....Should the election bios stay protected thru the election. It was at this point where editors started to make a defintive, declarative statement about their stand on the issue in question. In bold they said what they thought...or they replied within this section. My "straw poll" does not attempt to judge what an editor MAY mean in his/her comments prior to carl asking his question. THAT is when consensus evaluation should begin. Not before. Not during the discussion. Those editors that hinted at support or non-support should have made a definitive, definite, no-doubt-about-it statement in THIS section. If they did not respond to carl's question, I did not include them in my tally. In my experience unless a clear, decisive BOLDED statement is done consensus is elusive because it is never clear and visible to all. --Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose full protection I also oppose full protection on these articles. I'm one of the high-count editors on Barack Obama (#2), Hillary Rodham Clinton (#3), and John Edwards (#1), and have done some work on John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden , Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, etc., as well as many of the related subarticles, and like Wasted Time R object to the characterization that vandalism has made it impossible to leave the articles with semi=protection alone. Content disputes do abound, but vandalism is kept in check by the many editors watching these articles and their integrity is fairly promptly kept intact. I have long advocated semi-protection for these articles - I think it is essential and should be permanent - but I think full-protection is overkill and frustrating, especially to long-time editors who don't want to have to wait for edits to be effected by admins. If we have full protection, I think we should accompany it with an "established" account scheme that would allow experienced editors to continue editing, as Antandrus describes. I also support the concept of a "stable article" version for high profile pieces. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Indefinite semi-protection for editing; full protection for moving per MZMcBride. Tvoz/talk 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose any sort of preemptive full protection, per Mendaliv, Buster7, and WP:AGF. That well-meaning editors would be automatically censored during an election strikes me as just...scary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No strong opinion here on whether the page is fully protected or not (and I patrol Obama related articles, though less-so than many others.) At the Obama-Drama-top of this thread, the original complaint was that the folks patrolling Obama-related pages are barely able to keep up with addressing the escalating frequency of poorly sourced smears, despite a ton of effort, good faith, a FAQ on the talkpage, etc. The issue isn't really article vandalism, but talkpage disruption (and now daily BLP-violations on the talkpage) that invariably bring us daily to SSP, ANI and other noticeboards. I agree that this is how it is supposed to work per wikiprocess, but I'm also seeing the same few volunteers spending what appears to be 8+ hours a day in getting this done. What would be really helpful is if a few more admins would watchlist the Obama-related pages and help with implementing daily-needed WP:RS and WP:NPOV explanations and greasing WP:DR. thanks and regards, --guyzero | talk 06:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose preemptive protection per the basic premises of a wiki. If semi-protection fails to stop torrents of vandalism, then upgrade to full. But don't do it preemptively. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose preemptive full protection - I am one of the many editors that contribute to and watch Sarah Palin and other related articles. There is no evidence of "excessive vandalism" or BLP violations on the candidate's bios. This was anecdotal and a misrepresentation of the current status of the articles. Proper procedure should have been followed including a complete review of the four articles in addition to further discussion prior to full protection being applied. IP75 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• STRONGLY OPPOSE full protection. Wikipedia policy clearly prohibits full protection and labels such action as unjustified when used as a preemptive measure. Anyone using the argument, "oh, but it's Obama or Mccain or whatever" has no basis for their favor of protection, and their !vote shouldn't be considered by the admin making the ultimate decision. Digital^Ninja 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose preemptive full protection - Protection as a preemptive measure is not supported by policy. See WP:PROTECTION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Didn't you already say that at 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)? Also, this protection was not purely pre-emptive, it was in response to actual complaints about the Obama article. Personally, I don't like the protected either, but I find it very unlikely the articles will stay semiprotected all the way until Nov 4, or that there will be that much new biographical info between now and then. So, thinking pragmatically, I see both sides here and don't have as strong of an opinion about the need for unprotection as I usually do. (For example, I was adamantly against the earlier protection of the Palin article). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• However "unlikely" you find biographical info to become available, It's the principle of the matter, and the spirit of the project being violated here, and has nothing to do with how logical it might seem to just establish a blanket of admin-only-censorship. Digital^Ninja 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Semi Protect only. There isn't enough established user vandalism to warrant full protection. Plus, there are enough people with all 4 pages on their watchlist that any vandalism will only last a few minutes, if not a few seconds. CTJF83Talk 15:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Speaking only for the Barack Obama article: it's now receiving 168,000 visits per day,[137] and rising quickly. That's about 115 views per minute. Based on some of the 'vandalism' recently, that means that approx. 115 users read that Barack Obama is a 'nigger'...'piece of shit' based on the minute it took to rever this edit[138]. 345 users read that he is a "an unexperienced, piece of shit who will drive this country to HELL!" based on this one.[139] Another 115 read that Barack Obama's religion is "Islam" here[140]. And 215 readers have read Wikipedia and seen that "Barack Hussein (lol) Obama" is a "nigger-shit".[141] This is just a sample, and it's only going to get worse. To call this 'vandalism' is the same as calling burning crosses on the lawn of a black family as simply 'vandalism', and 'oh, we'll just put the fire out and take the cross away'. This is a BLP, and every one of those readers is likely to: 1) lose all faith in WP. 2) believe these things. or 3) think that wikipedia is a racist, bigot website. Think of a 12 year old black girl coming to read about her possible next president and finding these things. WP:BLP should trump all. Keep at least the Barack Obama article protected through the election, please. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• According to your math, tens of thousands of people were confused by this wording, [142]. Another few thousand people were confused if Obama was even in the country, [143]. And yet countless others lost interest in the article all together do to a lack of notable pictures before this edit. Editing goes both ways, and this isn’t even counting the consensus building through healthy reverts and talk page suggestions has improved the article in the true Wiki spirit as it should be. Digital^Ninja 16:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Semiprotect and if any registered editors decide to play silly buggers by inserting BLP issues, vandalism, etc., block them until after the election. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Tony's suggestion: to put teeth into semiprotection for these articles, immediate block for any vile vandalism and BLP violations on these articles. That should reduce the number of established accounts out for no good on semi-protected articles. Can we have agreement on this so editors can ask for it when needed? Tvoz/talk 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Version control using subpages

Here's the idea. Each of the four figures will have an unprotected subpage in the talk namespace, for example Talk:Barack Obama/Draft. We will link to the subpage draft from the main (fully-protected) article with an explanation and people will be able to edit the draft freely. Admins will sync the page throughout the election day (obviously first using the "Show changes" button and linking to the /Draft subpage in the edit summary). Edits will only be allowed to the /Draft subpage until things calm down. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it, sounds like a good idea. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, just treat these articles like any other on the mainpage. No to special treatment.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also a No...special treratment not required--Buster7 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Too overly complicated; finding a solution for a problem that doesn't exist in this severity. seicer | talk | contribs 03:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. — Writegeist (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The default state of Wikipedia articles

... is that articles are editable. There is absolutely no reason for having these articles protected any longer than necessary, and that means a day or two. These articles need to be all put back in their default state, that is articles in an Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for protecting these articles and the protecting admin is not addressing the concerns presented in the talk pages and the clearly lack of consensus for having these articles protected when there is no evidence of vandalism that could not be taken care by the many eyeballs watching these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I have to agree with Jossi. There's clearly no consensus for protection here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly no consensus for anything here, with opinions on whether the article should be protected or not split pretty evenly. Whether or not that should result in unprotection as a default state, or status quo as default state isn't a judgment I'd want to do unilaterally, given the disaster the Sarah Palin wheel-was was. I would urge careful deliberation before any actions though. henrik•talk 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly no consensus for anything here' Exactly and that means restoring the default state which is for these articles to be unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(additional comment) These discussions reflect Wikipedia's evolving role in the world, something our current policies don't do a good job of taking into account how influential Wikipedia has become. I would suggest it might not be a bad idea to put together a coherent set of guidelines to handle very high profile articles, such as these, including what to do if the administrator on call feels that semi-protection is insufficient. We can't handle these cases in an ad hoc manner forever. henrik•talk 06:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The users who want the articles kept unprotected should put their money where their mouths are, and devote the next 5 days or so doing nothing here but dealing with vandalism and POV-pushing on those articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I'll unable alerts on my blackberry, and I'll monitor any changes to the article. Additionally, I'm almost always online. Any vandalism that comes through I'm sure I can handle it, not to mention other excellent editors who have been watching this page, User:Wikidemon, User:GoodDamon, User:Grsz11, User:Ferrylodge, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalNinja (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle, twinkle, little star. And either way, I doubt vandalism is going to fall to normal levels immediately after the election, especially if there's the same sort of drama there had been in the last two. Too bad we can't selectively use sighted revisions; this is the sort of situation where it'd be perfect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm also a little concerned that Admins are supporting full protection in a ratio of 3:1. The thing to remember here is Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit IMO. Digital^Ninja 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that articles can be protected and that users can be blocked, inherently undermines that idealistic goal. Yet it has to be done from time to time. And those who say the candidates' articles shouldn't be protected because it's against the rules, are saying that the rules are more important than reliable article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "unreliable" content has to do with this discussion? Wikipedia is extremely good at removing vandalism within seconds, and preemption is not just against "the rules", it is against the spirit of this project. Maybe that is not important for you, but surely it is important for many others, including me.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC)That argument is blatantly flawed as vandalism would be reverted within seconds with the amount of people who have these article on their watch pages. And seriously, how could you suggest that anyone supports policy over content? In fact, that is exactly what we're debating against! The policy of full protect being used to inhibit page content growth through use of a scare tactic that if we don't build it, vandalism will come. In fact, this has less to do with vandalism and unfortunately more to do with unjust censorship IMO. Digital^Ninja 15:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I encourage everyone here to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war if you are not familiar with the ongoing discussion about BLP articles. The arguments for and against protection of the Sarah Palin article then were, to a great extent, the same as the arguments for and against protection now. Arbcom essentially rejected the argument that full protection cannot be used to limit vandalism, and accepted the full protection of that article (which did not have a basis in the protection policy) as an acceptable use of admin discretion. This is one reason why I don't expect the candidate articles would stay semiprotected all the way to the election. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time Palin's article was seeing ~20 times as many edits per day as the candidate articles are now. I agree that Palin's protection made sense at the time, but I don't think the problem level demonstrated right now is high enough to justify protection. Dragons flight (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the traffic levels for viewers (which were the key issue in the previous incident) are quite high here as well. My real point is that arbcom has had a recent opportunity to consider the argument that "full protection for vandalism is against policy and against the spirit of wikipedia" (see MZMcBride's comments in the case). Their overall decision did not go in that direction, but was instead very permissive of full protection in situations such as this. Personally, I took the decision as a sign that I needed to modify my opinion about full protection of BLPs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So does this simply amount now to an "Arbcom said it is sometimes ok so we'll do it in this case also?" The Palin case was different as pointed out earlier. And frankly, if views see crap about famous people it will hurt us not the. The argumentum ad Arbcom is tiring. The bottom line is that the editing level here isn't nearly as high as it was with Palin and we have a heck of a lot more people watching these articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that arguments based on the protection policy that ignore the BLP issues have already been rejected by arbcom this fall. We can't simply ignore that case as if it had never occurred. I'm looking for a more moderate way forward, for these exceptional articles, rather than waiting for some random admin to invoke the BLP enforcement provision again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh. I don't have a strong opinion on this but the most logical moderate way forward seems to be semiprotection. There doesn't seem to be anyone strongly against that and if that actually doesn't work then we can reasonably talk about full protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against semiprotection, but I doubt it will last until Tuesday. Maybe my opinion about the inevitability of full protection will turn out to be wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl is correct that this is a WP:BLP issue, and an egregious case at that. To the users that believe that vandalism is reverted in "seconds", my post above shows that the very worst vandalism remains for 1 to 3 minutes, in which time 100-400 readers discover that Barack Obama is a "Muslim" or "nigger-shit", etc. In the best case scenario, someone refreshing their watch list could theoretically see a new edit, check the dif, and rollback in about 30 seconds. In which case only 100-200 readers would be introduced to Wikipedia for the first time by reading all kinds of amazing things about Barack Obama. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As Doc Glasgow pointed out after the Palin wheel war (and it is even more true in these cases) this vandalism makes Wikipedia looks bad. However it has absolutely no impact on the reputations of the people in question. Let's not kid ourselves. Wikipedia is influential. But nasty comments about Obama or McCain will simply make us look bad. So the real BLP risk is minimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A relevant portion of the hundreds of people reading that Obama is a Muslim, or seeing the awful photo of him that was being repeatedly put in the infobox, would have their views of Obama influenced by Wikipedia. Let's not delude ourselves, Wikipedia has real life consequences for living people. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tally - Stance on consensus and edit point

So far, the !vote is as follows:

• Full Protection: 9
• Oppose Protection: 13
• Semi Protection: 4

I think it's safe to assume that those who oppose protection also endorse semi-protection only (and most likely full protection on page move).

Please remember, this isn't a straw poll decision. Digital^Ninja 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if no consensus for page protection is reached, the protection should be removed by default since the consensus wasn't there to add said protection in the first place. Digital^Ninja 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, there was a consensus for protection at #More Obama-Drama. Now is a different issue, but accusations that there was no consensus are wrong. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would argue that if a consensus was reached there, we wouldn't be here. Digital^Ninja 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, how did you get counts lower than the counts two other people made before? Most likely you haven't counted everyone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I counted votes in the appropriate section Digital^Ninja 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you list the people you counted on each side, you can compare them with the previous lists, to see who you missed. Remember that one doesn't have to type in bold to express an opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrected tally:

Oppose/semi - 30 editors

Support full - 20 editors

IP75 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Hi everyone. I've been thinking (haven't had a lot of time to do that lately but oh wellz) and I wonder if, since the tally seems just about dead even (there's no clear conensus) if we could attempt to compromise. I will return the pages to semi today, and re-full protect them on the morning of election day thru to announcements of results, after which I will semi-protect them again. Is this something we can agree on? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support that, pending election day vandal activity on the article(s). Chances are they may need full protect, however if for some strange reason it's eerily quite, I would just leave the semi-protect IMO. Digital^Ninja 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm not opposed to full protect right now if activity justified it. I just don't see it. Either way, congrats for being bold and having the interest of the project at heart in keeping these articles safe; regardless of outcome. Digital^Ninja 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Digital, Unprotect (keep semi) and we watch the article on election day. If there is *any* vandalism or other shenanigans on election day, any such articles can be protected. I continue to disagree on preemptive protections, which are not permitted by policy; I am sure that during election day, there will be many of us carefully watching these articles, so there is nothing to fear. We can manage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should also say that this proposal assumes we'll have election results late on the evening of the 4th or the morning of the 5th. Obviously, if the election pulls a 2000 I'm not going to leave the page protected for weeks pending a supreme court decision... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. My only comment is that we may want to wait as long as possible before full protection on election day. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As said above, we monitor carefully and if there are any attempts to vandalize these pages, we will be already covered by the semi protection, and we can remove any vandalism from dormant accounts or other vandals. We will be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also support that compromise , L'A...Thank you...--Buster7 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Joshua: yeah, that seems fine. I think vandalism is inevitable but it should not start up in earnest until people are waking up. I would agree that the pages should stay semied as long as is reasonable. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 20:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support compromise IP75 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Well, everyone so far has supported the compromise so I'm off to make good my end of the bargain. I would say that if, as I heard rumored earlier, there is a way of setting huggle to only patrol the election related articles, we post instructions of how to do that here so that we can get people doing it. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, L'Aquatique, for all of your efforts on this. Although I still think that the Obama page should be protected because of the BLP issues, the community has clearly spoken. All of this attention should minimize the harm, hopefully. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, do we want to keep Barack Obama full protected? I already unprotected, but there is definitely more vandalism and blp pushing there, and the argument for keeping it protected is valid. What does everyone else think? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

←I can live with the compromise. Can we also agree that vandalism/BLP violators will be immediately blocked without the usual warning routine? Undoubtedly there are established accounts that can slip by sprot, and we should close them down immediately, at least for a week or two if not more. Tvoz/talk 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. A few days of "zero tolerance" on a BLP probation article by shutting down SPA's on first contact would be a welcome relief. However, I have to stress only on gross vandalism (e.g. fuck this N-word). Lets just use some common sense and good judgment, and we'll set the standard for how to handle this type of thing in the future. 75.33.218.39 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bravo L'Aquatique. — Writegeist (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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

User:ScienceApologist

This thread was started by banned user:Iantresman, is there anything here that needs actual admin attention? Thatcher 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grburster

Resolved

 – Borderline call that turned out in the end to be correct Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Could people reading this thread review what I've written at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grburster? I'm rather unhappy that a checkuser request was filed purely on the basis of this ANI thread and the name similarity. It looks like fishing to me, pure and simple. It also looks like an attempt to deflect from the criticisms being made by Grburster of ScienceApologist. As someone said above, please don't shoot the messenger. Have a look at Special:Contributions/Grburster - I see nothing wrong there. It looks to me like someone who has admitted (without disclosing) a prior account (that's fine) and who came to ANI to make a criticism of another editor, is now being 'investigated' on spurious grounds. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Recheck your assumptions please. Thatcher 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser was fully justified. As far as I can tell, an editor noticed what appeared to be a sock of a very disruptive user he was familiar with, and called for a check user. You should spend more time examining the situation before you call 'checkuser abuse'. Its exactly this kind of feel-good huggy enforcing of the rules without any knowledge of the actual situation that the disruptive users will take full advantage of of. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you are one of my favorite admins. I wish you would come over to WP:SSP or WP:RFCU and help us with the backlogs. Before criticizing, walk a mile in the other editor's shoes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Carcharoth does has a good point, the justification for the checkuser I requested was arguably borderline, but I did have a gut feeling I couldn't ignore. If that suspicion had been wrong it would have been me people would be criticising, rather than him. As a note, I've unblocked User:GammaRayBurst and apologised for my mistake in linking him to a banned user. Mark as resolved? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim, even if GammaRayBurst (talk · contribs) wasn't socking, it still looks like a vandal-only account. If you don't mind, I'll leave an unambiguous final warning for the account. — Scientizzle 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine with me. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response (was out last night). It seems things have moved on a lot since I posted yesterday morning. As I started the thread, I would have liked the opportunity to respond before things were marked resolved or collapsed, but sometimes things do happen quickly round here. I've reviewed what my thoughts and actions were here and the points I want to make before moving on are as follows:

• (1) I'm not in any way defending socking by User:Iantresman to evade his ban.
• (2) However, I stand by my opinion that before the checkuser was run, there was no way to tell who User:Grburster was. Did ScienceApologist recognise the style? Did Tim Vickers? Did MastCell? Did anyone else in that thread above (now collapsed by Thatcher)? There were some concerns, but those were focused on the new nature of the (self-admitted) experienced account, not on the connection TimVickers made with another account (which turned out to be unrelated, as Thatcher said, justifying the point I made at the checkuser request, though Thatcher failed to note that when asking me to recheck my assumptions).
• (3) I'd like to thank User:Crossmr and User:TimVickers, who understood the point I was making about the checkuser request. See here and here.
• (4) I would like to note for the record that I object to what was said in the posts by User:ScienceApologist (here - saying that those who accepted Grburster at face value at the checkuser request, and didn't know at the time that he was Iantresman, were "defending the indefensible" - a most unfair accusation to make: Thatcher "saved the day" because he had checkuser, while others (including me) only had the contributions history to go by) and User:Guyonthesubway (here - incorrectly stating the reason TimVickers filed the checkuser request and saying that I hadn't taken the time to examine the situation - obviously I feel I had taken the time to examine the situation, by reviewing every single contribution by User:Grburster and the other account named at the checkuser request). I don't want to go into more detail here (it would distract from the other points I'm making), but if those editors want to discuss this further, we can take it to talk pages.
• (5) I'm still concerned that User:Thatcher (who asked me to "recheck my assumptions") seemed to miss the point I was making about checkuser. Yes, I know Thatcher does huge amounts of checkuser work, but that is a reason for more scrutiny, not less. I would like to ask Thatcher directly what his reason was for running the checkuser (e.g. what was the reason given in the checkuser log?). Was it because of the request made by User:TimVickers (which didn't mention this ANI thread at all)? Or was it because he (Thatcher) saw a new account (self-admitted as an experienced editor), editing physics articles, who had made an ANI post criticising User:ScienceApologist, and alarm bells began to ring?
• (6) The final point, leading on from the previous one, is where do the boundaries of checkuser lie?

• (a) Is it acceptable to routinely run a checkuser over banned users (such as User:Iantresman) to catch sockpuppets?
• (b) Is it acceptable to routinely run a checkuser over people who criticise User:ScienceApologist?
• (c) Is it acceptable to routinely run a checkuser over new accounts who criticise ScienceApologist?
• (d) Is it acceptable to run a checkuser in a particular case (even if not technically justified) because you think it might reveal something else unrelated, and how much of that is left to the discretion of the checkuser?

My answers would be: Yes, No, Maybe, Yes (according to discretion). Could Thatcher or another checkuser (but preferably Thatcher, as it relates to the checkuser he carried out) confirm this is how things are done, or correct me if I'm missing things here? Thanks.

Apologies for the length of that response. As I said, I was out last night, but wanted to respond here and (hopefully) get some answers to the questions I posed above, and then move on. Carcharoth (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call for the check simply because an account criticised ScienceApologist, I called for a check partly because an account that was a self-admitted alternate account was showing a strong antipathy to ScienceApologist and the first edits this account made were to Talk:Non-standard cosmology. This raised the immediate suspicion in my mind that this was a sock (which I noted in my checkuser request) and Iantresman was the user that I suspected most strongly of being the sockmaster. However, I freely admit that these general suspicions were not actionable, and if there hadn't been the additional link to the GammaRayBurst account, I'd probably not have said anything. As it was, my instinct did turn out to be right, but the level of evidence at the time was weak - so I would not criticise anybody who disagreed with my decision - I wasn't completely sure myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, the answers to your questions are yes, yes, yes and yes, although it depends on the specific circumstances and the discretion of the checkuser. Checkuser may be used to "prevent disruption", and this is interpreted to give checkusers great latitude. In this case, I'd say that the potential of a banned user or disruptive SPA filing ANI complaints against other editors falls under the broad mandate, and since Ian has emailed me to say he did nothing wrong, I'd say parking on his IP for a while would also be justified. Certainly there are a number of editors, not just SA, who attract unwanted attention and harassment, so checking new accounts who target specific people is sometimes justified as well. And there are some editors who have proven to have a good track record of sniffing out sockpuppets, whose requests I might honor with less supporting data than an editor whom I did not know well. It really depends on many factors. Thatcher 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. It looks like the only point we disagree on is the extent of the "broad latitude" and my point (b). I should have been clearer about point (b) - it was meant to be in contrast to point (c) (which covers new users). My point (b) was meant to cover established users. i.e. Is it acceptable to checkuser established users who criticise ScienceApologist (some examples are in the collapsed thread). I don't think I even need to ask whether that is acceptable or not - without compelling additional reasons, valid criticism by an established account is clearly not disruption and should never be a reason to run a checkuser - there may be broad latitude, but it can't be without limit. But then I don't think you are suggesting that - I think there has just been a misunderstanding about what I meant under point (b). About the e-mail you received from Ian Tresman, I also received an e-mail from him. When I tried to look further into the background, it seems that not all the relevant threads are linked from the block log or the Arbitration case. Do you think it would be possible for someone who knows the background to all this better than me to tidy up the paperwork so that people coming fresh to this are better able to read up on the history? That doesn't need to be covered here, though, so I agree this thread is done now (i.e. I agree with the resolved tag placed earlier by Tim Vickers). Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly established users should expect that the bar is set much higher with respect to checkuser, but even established editors are not immune if the evidence is strong enough. Thatcher 22:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I guess if I peruse the checkuser request archives, I'll see where the bar is set. And the discretion of the checkusers covers the rest, with the checks and balances for the non-visible checkusers (the ones without requests) provided by the other checkusers and the checkuser mailing list. One thing I think it is helpful to remember here is that while checkusers can help to identify and clear up areas of disruption, there is a price paid in the "misses" - the checkuser runs that don't get any usable results (whether the checkuser was justified or not). No matter how much you try and tell people that the checkuser was needed (or, in the case of a speculative checkuser, that an experienced and trusted checkuser was following their instinct, even if the instinct was wrong in that case), if a check comes back as "not related", there will always be some people who get upset at having been checkusered (whether privately at the discretion of the checkusers, or by a public request). In my view, the balance to the "wide latitude" granted checkusers is the temperament for a checkuser to apologise in cases where they get it wrong, and not to always put it down to "experience" or "well, you can't get it right every time". In other words, where a checkuser gets it wrong and upsets someone, there should be a way to handle things. Is there any such system at the moment to handle "misses"? Actually, I've gone way off topic here. This should be continued at somewhere like WT:CHECKUSER, not here. Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As an additional comment, I think it is very unfair to judge Carcharoth's careful analysis of the evidence available at the time with the advantage of hindsight. Judgment calls like this are areas where two different people can carefully examine the same evidence and come to two opposite and entirely justifiable decisions. I think Carcharoth probably examined the same evidence and thought about what it meant just as carefully as as I did. Indeed, although my general suspicions were justified, my interpretation of the evidence was wrong and as Carcharoth pointed out, the two accounts I requested a check on were unrelated. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, for explaining things from your perspective a bit further, and for the kind words. It's appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist has got right back to edit-warring, refusing to engaging discussions, and making personal attacks. Please see the recent edit history for WP:FRINGE with particular attention to his skirting of 3RR and NPA: [162] [163] [164]. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. To quote what was being said there, I don't like the look of those edit summaries:

• Undid revision 248598756 by SamuelTheGhost (talk) looks like wikistalking, smells like wikistalking... - 13:17, 30 October 2008
• Undid revision 248709611 by Jossi (talk) Revert heavy-handed Jossi again. Sigh. - 05:43, 31 October 2008
• Undid revision 248767182 by Martinphi (talk) the POVPUSHERS are back! - 05:49, 31 October 2008

I'll drop ScienceApologist a note and ask him if he can explain why he is using inflammatory edit summaries like that. That is also a lot of reverting. More generally, it seems that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Mass edits sans discussion started after the edits by ScienceApologist. There is also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Edit warring at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Elonka has done some (maybe all) of the warnings needed: [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]. I endorse the actions taken by Elonka so far. Will drop her a note about this, and at the various discussions, but this might be better discussed at one of those other discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, it looks like the edit-warring at WP:FRINGE was an overflow from a dispute at WP:ENC. I posted a note on the talkpage there as well. --Elonka 05:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I too endorse Elonka's warnings there. --John (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Me three. Those edit summaries are needlessly inflammatory. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to have been some followup action. Elonka has banned ScienceApologist and Martinphi from the WP:FRINGE page for 30 days, claiming authority under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. See notice on the talk, notice to ScienceApologist, and notice to Martinphi. It has also been noted at the arbcom case page I am not completely sure I support all aspects of this but I am also not sure which page is the best place to discuss further. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem user: 65.254.165.214

Anonymous user 65.254.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has periodically vandalized the Negima!? article by blanking for several days now. What can be done against this user? This guy has to be stopped ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV? John Reaves 07:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried that moments before this message, but they only deal with recent vandals, not those who have done so hours after the report. And check out the recent edit history of the article. It seems that those in the 92.8.*.* and 92.10.*.* are backing him up as well. The article now currently on semi-protection, but I feel that its protection should be longer. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right. If a few days protection doesn't stop them, come back here after it expires and ask for a longer one. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You can also check out the protection log and the edit history. The blanking phenomenon has been going on for almost a year and a half now, possibly by the same person across a lot of IP addresses. I was hoping for a longer protection than the three month semi-protection imposed on the article last year. Is it possible for this article to be semi-protected indefinitely? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is technically possible but not something I'd be willing to do with this level of vandalism. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just seeking insight, Theresa...may I ask why that's not a good idea? Tide rolls (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection prevents unregistered and newly registered editors from editing an article. That's all of them not just the ones who are vandalising. Now most people edit as IP addresses at first and everyone is newly registered at one time. Preventing these people from editing articles does two things. 1) It makes their editing experience less than satisfactory and may therefore fail to encourage them from becoming regular editors and 2) deprives the article of the edit that they would have made and who knows if they'll bother to come back to it when they become autoconfirmed? For this reason semiprotection should, in my view, be used sparingly when other antivandalism efforts fail. It's a temporary solution used to deal with a situation. Now unfortunately some articles, (politicians, some sexual articles etc) are vandalised so frequently and by so many different people, that permanent semiprotection is the only option. It's not ideal, but it is better than an article being vandalised 20 times a day. This article does not fall into that category IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that in previous times after protection on the article expired, vandalism started again within less than 24 hours. I know there was surely hate against this anime (I know one), but stating this by blanking the article or vandalizing it is really an unacceptable action. But hunting down the instigators by the forums in which they gather is really a difficult task as well.

In addition, the Negima!? article in the English Wikipedia is the only one targetted. Its counterpart articles in the German, French, Polish, Japanese, and Thai Wikipedias are virtually untouched by vandals.

In a related note, in about thirteen hours or so from now, the protection on the article is about to expire. I won't be online by then to report anything to you and so will Skier Dude, the admin who imposed the protection, to do the necessary action (he said he will be out "Friday PM - Sunday AM"; not sure if that's US EST or GMT). The question is: Will anyone be kind enough to protect the article (for a period of time longer than a week) once the vandalism starts again, or at least list it in WP:RFPP? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)