Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 31 July 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

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

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

Range blocks include: /16:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raul's Response?

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

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

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

User:Tile join blocks

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

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

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

Half-cocked

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

Raul's reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrary section break after raul's reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know how much collateral damage these blocks are creating, nor do you have any idea how effective they are at preventing Scibaby from creating new accounts. You are simply taking wild guesses based on no evidence or understanding of the problem whatsoever (which is what the arbcom sanctioned Everyking for, now that I think about it). Raul654 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmph. If people were prohibited from commenting at AN/I just because they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, you could hear a pin drop in this mofo. MastCell  05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If Kurt Weber has an alternative solution, I would like to hear it. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why present alternative solutions when it's so much easier to say "Let's give up and let Scibaby do what he wants." It doesn't require learning anything about the problem (something that neither Spartan nor Kurt thought necessary before commenting here). Better yet, one can blather on about it while not doing any useful work (Kurt's specialty). Raul654 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That some people understand how to get around these blocks for good purposes does not mean that everybody does. The need to be accessible to newbies is at the very heart of WPs survival and growth. Raul, didn't you say above that even the current blocks weren't being effective? If so, why leave them up? DGG (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I said the blocks are half-effective - they don't prevent him entirely from editing Misplaced Pages, but they have had a demonstrable effect of slowing him down. He used to have dozens of outstanding sockpuppets at any given moment; now he has far fewer and they don't last nearly as long. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You, frankly, have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that I have no evidence behind my claims. Frankly, I submit that I'm vastly more informed about this issue than you are. And I find it ironic that you claim I do no "useful work", when I have done much more for Misplaced Pages than you ever have or ever will. "Not doing any useful work"...ha! Do you know anything about what I do here? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion (you won't, since it's blatantly false, as a quick check will show). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still agree that we may be doing more damage than good with these rangeblocks. A few people manage to figure out how to throw up unblock templates, and I regrettably have to decline them, instead offering to create them an account, but rarely ever receive that email from them. Potential contributors, lost forever? There must be another way. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In this day and age, where can you post something on the internet (say a forum, on a blog, etc.) without at least giving your email address, or, more typically, by registering? I know of very few sites where you can still do this. What maters is that everyone who is really motivated to participate in editing won't find it too cumbersome to get an account here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I see it, we have two solutions: end the range blocks, and effectively make it impossible to prevent the socks from being created, which makes the blocking policy a complete laughing stock, or keep the blocks in place and potentially alienate new people while needing to burn more IPs in order to prevent this sock from acting in the way he is doing. Either way, the options suck. However, partisans are becoming far too much of that and forgetting that the blocks are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. What doesn't help the encyclopedia is this bitter fighting. Can we please tone down the language? Everyone here wants to help the encyclopedia, and Scibaby is winning if admin are busy fighting amongst themselves. Thats exactly what he wants. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this problem is limited to the few global warming related pages, we could think about being selective in this respect. Is it possible to automatically block newly created accounts from certain IP ranges to contribute to a small list of articles? Count Iblis (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let's start a tally, then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The only two "suggested opposes" at DYK are me and Bedford" it sure seems like you were opposed in your excessive pursual of this and the extreme lengths you are taking: "I think it is a little excessive. I suggest possibly cooling down a bit. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)". So far, there have been quite a few people questioning your eagerness. Now, you definitely aren't helping your case by acting condescending. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic is acting "condescending"? I have to say, tu quoque... S. Dean Jameson 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN doesn't just apply to articles, you know -- or are you suggesting that "outsiders" are incapable of making judgments based on the available evidence? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominations are not limited to regulars in DYK, anyone can nominate. It was my suggestion, originally, that editors at DYK also discuss a solution, simply because editors at DYK and editors monitoring DYK are the DYK community. There is no door keeping anyone else out, though. The post is linked above, feel free to drop by and contribute to a solution if you like. --Blechnic (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review: protection of John Edwards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages welcomes outside input. That contrasts with the tabloids, which welcome inside output. Baseball Bugs 23:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: redacted link that apparently everyone but me already knew about --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry, haven't really been following it. I was just surprised to see Misplaced Pages mentioned as the second link when I gnewsed for "John Edwards". I have redacted the link, since apparently everyone but me already knew about it :D --Jaysweet (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has formed on the article talk page on how to address this issue within the article, which I have updated accordingly. I think this thread can be marked as resolved.  Sandstein  07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue. Consensus is not the determining factor here. We have a single-sourced allegation from a questionable source. Not good. --jpgordon 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. This is a community issue, therefore consensus is always appropriate. Good! --Dragon695 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. BLP, like NPOV, trumps any consensus arguments. BLP violations may be removed regardless of consensus. --jpgordon 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the article back to semi-protection again, due to a 100% BLP violation or vandalism rate by IP editors or new accounts during the 10 hours it was fully unprotected. As I also reverted some of those edits today, I'm letting the community review my semi-protection. We haven't had any edit warring over this material by autoconfirmed editors in that period. GRBerry 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that an outcome like that is self enforcing and sclerotic. We shouldn't treat bans/indef blocks as broad philosophical stances. We should treat them as actions against editors for disrupting the community (or rather, to prevent future disruption to the community). this isn't a moot court, so specific case by case actions shouldn't impact future decisions about unrelated incidents. To be clear, I'm only responding to you because you are the messenger. I'm not assuming you share those feelings or that you should share in my distaste for that outcome. I'm not an admin (and if I were, I wouldn't unblock him because I'm 'involved'), but the community shouldn't be motivated to take a hard stance against 'issue X' in such a fashion. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

that doesn't block me - so someone might want to want to look into that because it affects other editors rather than me. --87.114.36.65 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now are you blocked? MBisanz 19:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Day, can you please stop? It is actions like this which causes a problem and harms the community. If you really want to edit and contribute to Misplaced Pages to make it better, why do you continue to act in this manner? Its harmful, causes problems, and increases tension. It is not really fair to a lot of the members of the community. If you would come back to merely apologize, that would be one thing. However, this seems rather harmful and distressing. I implore you, can you stop these actions? Sure, you may feel slighted. Sure, you may feel that some people contradict each other. But there are a lot of good people out there that are affected by the things you do. At least think of them. There will be range blocks to stop you, which will cause problems. There will be sock checks to find you, which will cause problems. Innocent people will probably be hindered. Why will this happen? Because of your insistence to act in a "rebellious" manner, and for what reason? What purpose do you really hope to get out of all of this? Attention? To upset things? If you merely want to be respected and have your posting privileges returned, then you need to realize the damages that come about from your actions and stop this. Give it some time. Get in contact with some of the blocking admin. Prove that you want to help, not hinder, and please stop going about this in the manner that you are doing now. It won't help. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's obvious opposition, he is officially banned as of now. Wizardman 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of a formal ban. Frederick day has been a disruptive user at times, has socked quite a bit, but they have quite a lot of constructive edits intermixed with them. I think they do have some intent of constructively editing to the project, but obviously, for now, he won't be unblocked. I'd suggested to him that he edits another project for a few months, to show that he can constructively edit Misplaced Pages, and then return here and seek a review of his indef block. I disagree with the upgrading of the indef block to a formal ban, and I'm probably standing alone here, but if that's the case, then so be it. I wanted to make my opposition known. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it steve - in many ways, I'm actually glad to see a bit of clarity - it beats what's go on behind the scenes for the last month "how long does blocked forever mean? FOREVER", "so should I just start a new account in secret ? NO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER", "couldn't we discuss some criteria for my return? NO BECAUSE YOU ARE BLOCKED FOREVER", "So I might as well just edit in secret ? NO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER AND A DAY". At least this way, my block will be shown for what it is - a ban. --85.214.34.238 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, Fredrick day is pretty much impossible to block, without advanced systems that we don't have in place. They could be put in place, but Misplaced Pages is almost paralyzed from my point of view. Whack it on the head and a finger twitches. Short of some major structural changes, in how we utilize our volunteer labor, I'll repeat it: it is impossible to block him. He has access to not just one IP network, but many, and easily. He's said that he can pick up a number of unsecured routers in his neighborhood (which is clearly densely populated). It's believable. In addition, he has one or more direct access providers, with one or more major ISPs. The range 87.112 - 87.115 is obviously one of them, I'd guess that he gets a new address in that range just by rebooting his modem. Then, should you block that entire range, he just picks up a neighbor's router. Or maybe he walks down the block to an internet cafe. Or maybe he drives around in his car. You can, with a lot of effort, and a fair amount of inconvenience to other users, make it slightly inconvenient for him. That's about it. I gave up a long time ago asking for IP blocks, even when his IP persists for a day. Oh, did I mention that he knows how to use proxies? Now, the real trick: if what he's stated in the past has been true (which must always be questioned with him), he has other accounts, so all this talk about registering a new account and editing quietly is ... rather silly. I suspect that he has specific IP *and computers* that he uses for these other accounts. In other words, the only way to even get close to identifying him would be behaviorally. And he's careful. He changes his behavior. Now, from various clues, I have come to suspect certain users. And I am not going to reveal who they are, unless I find I could actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and even then I might not reveal it. Why? Because punishing Fredrick day has never been my motive.

If he's got an account that is not disruptive, I wouldn't go after it, generally. I didn't act quickly on Frederick day (the new spelling), thought about it for a day, and then did file a report. After others had already acted, apparently. I filed a report, months ago, on another suspected sock -- the only one that didn't result in a clear identification -- based on an IP "accident" and some behavioral evidence. It came back "possible." Perhaps because of the IP. Partly because there is a good chance the editor is not Fd, but mainly because the editor wasn't disruptive, I dropped it. Again, assuming it wasn't him, that is part of the damage from extensive socking. It creates suspicion. Fredrick day is claiming that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't -- so he might as well do it. But that is a very old and very dangerous argument, and it shows, unfortunately, that the welfare of the project isn't first on his mind. His own opinions are first, his own unrestricted freedom of action comes first. So, he will continue to remain blocked, I'll predict, at least for the time being. With the accounts that, as he has said many times, he "wants us to see." The others, he continues to do what he wants, and he's careful to keep them partitioned.

Fredrick day showed, in his actions as Fd and as Allemandtando, a certain kind of poisonous attitude. When I came to suspect other editors, I saw that same poisonous attitude, only restrained, only expressed when the editor felt safe. Are they Fredrick day? That certainly doesn't prove it. There is plenty of poison to go around, and if Fd's computers were to melt down and he became indisposed, Misplaced Pages would still have to deal with massive incivility and factional division. He isn't the cause, and so I don't consider "getting rid of him" to be the solution. I'd rather try to find a way to include him. But that won't happen until he also recognizes what I've been saying. It's not personal.

As to deleting his contributions, the bottom line is that any editor may do it. I don't recommend it, but, on the other hand, in reviewing some of the User:Frederick day edits, there is a certain edge to them. He was correct, generally, that is, I haven't seen any edits that would, properly, even result in a warning. However, a very experienced user popping into obscure articles that are being edited by the clueless, who doesn't take them by the hand, welcoming them and guiding them through our sometimes arcane process, but figuratively bonks them over the head with Misplaced Pages rules, this does some damage. So there is some value in reverting him; on the other hand, it can raise false hopes for the clueless. Whew! -- they think -- dodged that bullet! And then comes the AfD and it snows Delete. I found it a rewarding exercise to follow Frederick's edits in detail and to restore some and to deal differently with others. He was always "right," so far, but his actions weren't always the best that could be done, because of that missing welcoming element. Bottom line: there is no policy requiring his edits to be reverted, nor those of any blocked editor. But any editor may revert on sight, without harm, except for the BLP problem I mentioned above. And if someone doesn't like it, they can revert them back, thus taking responsibility for them. If his friends care about his contributions, they are perfectly welcome to take up what I've done to a small degree: review all his edits and restore the ones where reversion was a loss. And then, if someone doesn't like that restoration, they have someone to complain to, a responsible party. --Abd (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Abd, I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but I think it might be a good idea to let someone else "look after" User:Fredrick day, as it could be interpreted that your disagreements with him are turning into a personal vendetta. I first encountered him while opposing one of his deletion nominations, and since then it seems like you have appeared everywhere he goes. I obviously don't know what is going on in any other person's head, but it seems like someone could easily get the wrong idea. There are a few responsible and incisive administrators in the above thread who are looking at this, so it's safe enough to leave it for others. Now I'm off to take my own advice and edit an article that needs quite a bit of work! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, Grey Knight. One question, though. What "disagreement?" The last few days, yes, I have appeared in many places he went (as User:Frederick day. Restoring his contributions, more often than not, or in some way trying to make up for them being more or less automatically reverted. "Vendetta?" Strange vendetta, I'd say. As to "incisive admins," yes, some are involved. And I've gotten appreciative email from more than a few. So.... what? --Abd (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It certainly hasn't been established that 75.47 is Artisol2345/AL2TB/Splat5572, and, as someone who's tried to clean up after them, I'm not convinced. --NE2 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way NE2, speaking of "cleaning up after us" I've boldly decided to add all the junctions you removed back into the exit lists if you haven't noticed already - (e.g. from Bayshore Freeway back to U.S. Route 101 in California). Splat5572 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've already been reverted, not by me. --NE2 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not debate the inclusion of freeway exits here. Take that to your talk page, now that it is unprotected, or to the relevant article or project pages. Before this thread spins out of control, is there anything more to be resolved here? Jonathunder (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, since the user's talk page is now unprotected and some editors have started using it, and since this user is responding to messages, I will mark this thread resolved. If there is legitimate concern this user is an abusive sock (and not all socks are abusive, as noted above) there are places to report that. If there is just concern about freeway exits or other normal editing concerns, discuss them in the appropriate places. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --NE2 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Splat5572 has filed an arbitration request. It's probably not going to go anywhere, but he says he is AL2TB but not Artisol2345. As the only one currently editing is Splat5572, and particularly Artisol2345 hasn't edited for almost a year, is it really appropriate for his user page to be protected with a sockpuppet template? --NE2 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally submitted an arbitration request because well the 75.47 IP advised me to do it sometime in March, and I didn't have the time to do it now. Anyways I'm fine right now. I removed my request. (Though I really don't know if I should take anymore advice from the 75.47 IP; he edits my user and user talk pages a lot, so I decided to do the same thing to him. Yes, it didn't get us anywhere.) Splat5572 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see User:Rlevse helped you withdraw the request, beat me to it. Since you have had bad advice about the use of Arbitration, let me point you to the description of dispute resolution so you can find out how to solve future problems. Arbitration is the very last line of dispute resolution. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rschen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked as a sock of Splat5572 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), confirmed by Thacher. seicer | talk | contribs 04:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if calling them socks is appropriate, since their editing periods don't overlap. It's certainly a username policy violation though. --NE2 05:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Baiting by User:TharkunColl

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

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

What, again? This issue was just archived a day or two ago. Yo! They're the British Isles. Get used to it. Baseball Bugs 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo! There are other points of view. Get used to it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You can call them whatever you want, but they are the British Isles. Baseball Bugs 05:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is DDstretch who has made comments in violation of WP:CIVIL on TharkunColl's talk page, such as "Don't make such laughably stupid comments." If people read the discussion on TharkunColl's talk page, they can see that everyone who's commented about it there has accepted the idea as interesting, had some humour about their repeated differences, and enjoyed consideration of the idea. Out of the editing of these pages people develop a certain comeraderie, regardless of their differences, that encourages collaborative editing. This can be seen on TharkunColl's page in the section about the proposed wikiproject. The people who regularly work on these articles develop a certain rapport which isn't obvious to those who don't- well that's what I see anyway. Butting in from someone without much history of editing these specific articles en masse, would seem to be deliberately antagonistic, especially terms such as "Don't make such laughably stupid comments," when making uninvited comments on someone's talk page. ðarkuncoll 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Leetpriest blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't this threat require more than a block? Or is the threat empty enough not to warrant anything further? I would think that a threat to hack servers should be forwarded to either OTRS or the Wikimedia foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Might just be me, but this sounds like someone who's SO mad he's going to hold his breath and stomp his feet until he turns blue in the face...or he's really going to hack the server, your choice...Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard the word "bankhead" used in that context, so I can't say for sure that he intends to hack. Perhaps we was offering to do some performance tuning on the servers? (Seriously, though, Bankhead gives me no help. WTF does that mean?) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's something you have to be a really L33T haxor to understand. Or perhaps he's a big fan of Tallulah Bankhead. Jonathunder (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is the latter, then perhaps it is a threat - according to rumour - to comprehensively blow the servers? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When even Urbandictionary.com can't help...My guess is, it's probably a personal neologism. And not a very cromulent one, either. Gladys J Cortez 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillman

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would urge any Admins here to be pragmatic. Hillman has made his point about wanting to stay "vanished" and would rather delete his AFD comments than changing his status. But Hillman has made very important comments on the AFD. He has stayed as uninvolved as possible. He is not editing any articles, he is simply giving some relevant information that we can use. Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules, which is official policy, says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve here. It’s almost as if you’re trying to get a certificate to say you’re inactive so that you have proof of it for whatever imagined reason. If you want to be considered inactive or vanish, simply stop editing right this very second. The longer you keep editing, asking questions or removing your own previously posted comments, the longer you’re being active. It’s really that simple, stop trying to complicate the simplest of things. If you respond to this by asking me for proof in a policy or for a further definition, you’re simply prolonging your time of activity. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And I think we can all agree that if he stops editing immediately, we can safely consider him to remain inactive? -- SCZenz (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Users who edit are active, users who don't are inactive. There's more to Misplaced Pages than just writing articles. If one participates in community discussions of any sort, they're most certainly active. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Hillman has simply made an honest mistake and wants to remain "vanished", I don't have a problem with us honoring that status assuming they don't edit any further.

For the record, I strongly disagree with Count Iblis. Whether or not Hillman "made very important comments" and "stayed as uninvolved as possible" is not at all relevant to this Right-to-Vanish issue. If an editor wants their user and talk pages completely deleted, they must agree to leave Misplaced Pages and not edit here again under any username. Period. Otherwise, they are simply "inactive" or "retired", and may blank those pages, but the revision histories stay. — Satori Son 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Every wikipedia user should be held responsible and accountable for his/her actions. Users DO get banned all the time for their actions. If User:Hillman thinks he can write whatever he wants about whomever he wants, and not only WP:STALKs , but also WP:HArasses other users, and if he thinks that than he can just ask his edit history to be deleted and talk page protected, only to came back again next year or sooner and do the same thing (as he already did these days), I think he is wrong.

I think that he should either be indefinitely blocked for misrepresenting his 'retirement' and for violation of above policies, and/or that his edits should remain and user page unprotected so that users can respond to his nonsensical accusations.

And BTW, in his 'important' comment, User:Hillman selected few quotations from a scientist that has published over 100 papers and I think half a dozen book. I am sure if User:Hillman had published only a third of that, I would be able to find quite an absurdities in it. I did find absurd paranoid accusations in only few pages that he wrote in last few days, as can be seen on process equation deletion page. In addition, all the things he wrote about on deletion page of 'process equation' have nothing to do with the topic of the article 'process equation'.

In addition, putting an indefinite block on CH would be compatible with his wishes of 'vanishing' and will 'discourage' his future temptations for editing. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is not Chris Hillman. Misplaced Pages is not an isolated island on the internet. Bad physics articles written here do have an impact on the physics community. It is well known that wikipedia is not good at dealing with fringe and pseudo science in a NPOV way. Chris Hillman is an ex wiki editor, but he came here to complain about an article and a fellow scientist as a member of the scientific community, not as a wikipedia editor. He raised some serious issues, so we should listen to what he has to say.

What's the point of raising the issue of Hillman's status as wiki editor? Is it to let Lakinekaki write wiki articles like one based on his paper Quantum bios and biotic complexity in the distribution of galaxies in peace without being bothered by criticism? Count Iblis (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I didn't complain on him placing my name in bios article deletion page (and other editors knew who i am long before CH came to discussion, which can be seen from my talk page), but I do however object him mentioning my name in unrelated articles in an attempt to discredit me as an editor. What in the hell has intermittency to do with anything? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad physics articles written here do have an impact on the physics community. I see. So physicist need to be protected from bad physics and fringe and pseudo science. They don't have reasoning abilities to distinguish between those, so they need our help. It is good to know this. Lakinekaki (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Noooo, laypeople, innocently relying upon Misplaced Pages and thinking that fringe theories, extreme minority views, and outright whackjobbery are more important than they really are or are even mainstream have the impact on the physics community, in terms of funding, attention, and time wasted in educating/debunking/fighting off/re-educating those fooled. The recent antics of the pro-Cold fusion crowd in attempting to skew Misplaced Pages coverage to give themselves some positive mainstream cred should have been a clue. --Calton | Talk 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Boldautomatic

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

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

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

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

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

It's not clearcut vandalism, so I'm not at WP:AIV, but I'm fed up with the disruption being caused to me by an editor who it is fair to assume has a conflict of interest and I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review and take whatever action they feel necessary. _GB 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm having great problems with GB's attitude as an editor. If the deleted page conversation is checked you will find that he requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school. When I pressed him (I assume it's a him and not a her) on this matter he went back on previous comments and finally admitted that it was requested for speedy deletion because it was not notable enough.

Checking the site, my understanding is that speedy deletion is not actually a remedy for non-notable pages. I am at a loss to understand why GB was so adamant that the page be removed in this manner. Perhaps someone can explain this.

Re talking on GB's talk page - just trying to get a straight answer out of him. They make a comment on my page, I respond on his page. I, for one, am fed up with the rather high-handed attitude GB exhibits and the way in which he has consistently refused to give a plain answer to a straight question, all the time prevaricating and going back on previous comments.

Very disappointed in the standard of this editor! --Boldautomatic (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is now getting seriously tiresome. My comments on the talk page of ICAL (which I've temporarily restored here for ease of reference) speak for themelves. I start by flagging ICAL under A7 (web) - "an article about a website ... that doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - he can't say he didn't read that bit, because he quotes it in his first post to the talk page. I end with "None of are predicated about its inclusion or not solely on the basis of whether it's an online organisation, but about notability, and specifically whether it satisfies the criteria of notability as they apply to websites.", and I'm not exactly sure where along the way he gets the idea that I was "prevaricating", "going back on previous comments" or somehow "finally admitted" that it was not notable enough. Halfway through the discussion I am even told to "Forget notability" - an interesting thing to tell me if a little later on I'm supposed to be changing my tune and suddenly saying it's all about notability.

As the talk page shows clearly enough, Bold's responses and arguments were :

1. it's not a website it's a school (answer : no, it's website);
2. why are you biased against ICAL (answer : I'm not);
3. let's delete all the entries that lead onto commercial sites, starting with Microsoft (answer : no, let's not, let's just make sure that non-notable organisations aren't included);
4. I'm going to flag a (physical) school for speedy deletion to spite you then (answer : physical schools don't fall under A7 - have a look right there in the wording of the tag itself, and sure enough the speedy was declined);
5. ICAL is a school because it has students and offices (answer : it's a website, see (1) above);
6. So, online educational establishments aren't allowed on Misplaced Pages, then (answer : they are, if they're notable enough);
7. Forget notability, are ONLINE educational establishments allowed on Misplaced Pages (answer : any organisation is allowed on it's notable and that notability can be verified through reliable sources);
8. "So now we can discount all that you said about about it being removed because it relates to an online instituation" (answer : have you actually read and understood any of the comments above?).

I've been banging my head against a metaphorical brick wall so hard I'm in danger of getting a real headache. Would someone please read the talk page (and that includes you, Bold, since I'm not convinced you actually read any of it first time around) and post their views. When you've finished, Bold, can I suggest you also read this page on speedy deletion - if you had done before writing your post above you'd have found out quite quickly that speedy deletion is a (astonishingly frequently used) remedy for non-notable pages.

As for being "high handed" and being "disappointed in the standard of this editor", well, until Bold answers the (straightforward) question of whether he has a conflict of interest or not, and not that I see anything wrong with how I've behaved, I don't see why I should behave any differently to a user who has, amongst other things, insinuated that (i) the flagging of the page for speedy deletion was an underhand tactic carried out by a rival (oh, out of malice, too), (ii) I must be "very please with self" that ICAL was deleted, (iii) I must work for another commercial organisation because I (and others) removed a link he kept inserting, and (iv) when in the minority, the concensus (sic) is ganging up against him. _Gb 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me break this down. GB deleted the page because - in his opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable. Thus there were 2 criteria which he needed it to fulfill: 1) it needed to be a website and 2) it needed to be non-notable.

The article was not about a website. It was about a school. A distance learning school. Like OU only smaller. A school with over 10,000 students operating for over 10 years and arguably the largest and most established in its field.

Later on GB admitted that online organisations can have entries here (if they're notable). So that negated the first criterion. He thus wanted to delete it because it was not notable only.

Is ICAL notable? Well considering the above facts about the school that is debatable. In trying to find out the criteria for notability I referenced several other articles which GB was happy to allow on the site, notably this one which he refused to delete because according to him it was "physical" therefore it was allowed. He did not mention the notability of the article I referenced.

Herein lies the problem. GB allowed the Nanjing school to remain (though it contains no verifiable references) because he must have felt it was notable (physicality having been proved to be irrelevant) and yet he deleted ICAL even though it was similar in style and content.

Furthermore, when I tried to establish from GB what aspects of this page constituted notability he steadfastly refused to explain. I know he's unpaid, but it's hardly professional. (I now note that the page in question has been flagged for deletion - not speedy deletion like the ICAL page, note, but a more considered deletion. It is a shame such care could not have been taken over the ICAL page - why was that?)

As for GB's accusation of trolling, I am afraid that I fear this is GB's excuse for not being able to answer my questions in full! --Boldautomatic (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's late and I'll post a full reply in the morning, but in the meantime :

1. If you're going to break things down, at least get them correct. I didn't delete the page, I flagged it for deletion. The policy two criteria are that (a) it was about a website, and (b) the article didn't assert the notability of the website concerned. If you'd actually bothered to read the policies at any stage you'd know this.
2. That'd be, what, the fifth time you've been asked if you have a conflict of interest? Do you? If you have no conflict why the reticence to answer?
3. It's interesting to note how quickly you back away from your assertions about what I said when presented with the actual record of our discussions. In particular I note the speed and ease with which you moved from " requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school" to " deleted the page because - in opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable" when presented with the substance of our conversation. If only you could read the relevant policies you're being pointed at repeatedly with such ease.
4. I'm loving the irony that despite having wasted untold posts on you, and having asked on numerous occasions whether you have a conflict of interest, without having received the courtesy of a reply, I'm the one that hasn't answered your questions in full.
5. In the time you've spent discussing this you could have re-written ICAL as a featured article, and yet you persist in running the same argument time and time again. Would you still like to assert that you're not trolling?

Let's try and keep the next exchange short and sweet. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe

I've blocked David Tombe (talk · contribs) for three months for disruptive editing at Mozart, part of a general pattern of disruption at every article he touches, most notably at Centrifugal force. Some will remember his previous appearances at AN/I in May. I see little prospect of improvement, given his lengthy block history and his refusal to accept advice, and believe that a full ban may be in order. Acroterion _(talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block: I could not use my administrative tools myself, since I was involved in the editing, and the associated talk page conflict. This is one of the most obvious cases of WP:DEADHORSE I've seen in a while, and it has wasted the time of a lot of people in completely unrelated places. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support Acroterion's block of this patently disruptive editor. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A side note: an IP editor in the range 71.xxx.xxx.xxx or 72.xxx.xxx.xxx pops up reliably when Tombe is blocked to accuse everybody of bad faith and mistreatment of Tombe. Consensus is that it is not Tombe himself, since they appear to be on a different continent, and have a different writing style. The IP can be disruptive on his own account, and WP:RBI should apply. Acroterion _(talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be blocked to prevent disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban

Thanks. I was heading over here to request this very thing, after seeing the Mozart and Centrifugal force disruptions. I think an outright ban may be in order. Eusebeus (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban. He's been blocked several times within a short timeframe (the last 3 months); the misconduct has not changed, and there is no sign of change or improvement in the future either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose I should ask the question: would any admin be willing to unblock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Help revert move mistake

Hi could someone revert this? I though I was looking at the old archive but accidentally moved the talk page instead. Thank you! Banjeboi 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is  Done, but for future reference, you don't need an admin to move a page over a redirect page with a single edit. –xeno (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried reverting and it wouldn't budge. Banjeboi 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to use revert/undo in this case; use the move tab and move it back to its old name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jew of Linz

The dicussion page topic "False claims about the Jewish descent of the Bethmann family" in the article "The Jew of Linz" contains entries by an anonymous editor, one "Number17 (talk · contribs)" (who also edits under the name "Goodmorningworld (talk · contribs)") who has been systematically removing references cited in this article and in other relevant Misplaced Pages articles, without providing his own supporting references to justify the deletions. I'm not sure if anything can be done about it, but I am drawing the matter to administrative attention. I would ask anyone who attends to these things to read the discussion page topic for details. Please let me know if anything further is required, and the final administrative decision on this matter. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: "Kimberly Cornish" is the name of the author of the book the article concerns. Skomorokh 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kimberley, can you provide us some diffs showing Goodmorningworld and Number17 removing verifiable references? I only see two edits by Goodmorningworld to the recent page history of Jew of Linz, (none by Number17) and they both seem to be constructive. On the other hand, this edit in of yours in particular worries me: . Please realize that if you are actually the author of this book, your editing this page constitutes a potential conflict of interest, and I would strongly encourage you be very careful not to make biased edits like the one above. L'Aquatique 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the article for a moment, this Number17/Goodmorningworld thing has more to it than meets the eye. Number17 stopped editing in June of last year, and has no contribs since then. Goodmorningworld has <50 contribs and has been editing less than a month, and he uses Number17 as his sig, e.g. here -- hence Kimberly's confusion.

Block log is clean for Number17, so it is definitely not a block-evading sock -- but in any case, it's confusing as hell. Maybe he just lost his password from his previously retired account? heh... I will ask Goodmorningworld about it on his talk page, as well as notify him of this ANI thread. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, their interests seem diametrically opposed too... maybe GMW didn't realize there was already a user Number17? In any case, I eagerly await his clarification. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Talk:Barack Obama

The article Barack Obama has been subject to numerous controversies and edit-wars. Many of those have made it to ANI and other administrative pages. None of that is directly the subject of this report; however, some background might be relevant. A number of editors have argued that material on William Ayers should be included in the article about Obama, on the grounds that the personal acquaintance of these two (living) persons shows something negative about the judgment or inclinations of Obama. Consensus has leaned against such inclusion, but that's a regular content issue.

In making the argument for inclusion, some editors have made increasingly controversial claims about Ayers. I believe many of these claims are outright libel, in fact. It is quite true that these comments are made on a talk page, not in a main article; furthermore, they are made on the talk page of a peripherally connected article, not on the main Ayers article. Nonetheless, I am concerned that even in this position, these comments could expose the Wikimedia Foundation to legal action, and are inappropriate for inclusion anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

The editors including this material are mostly User:Noroton, User:WorkerBee74 and User:Curious bystander. In the past, some additional editors blocked or topic-banned for sock-puppetry and incivility have added similar (but less extreme) comments. Partial diffs of recent comments of issue include:

Curious bystander

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228709281&oldid=228708898
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228708330&oldid=228708016

WorkerBee74

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228643101&oldid=228642901
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228646069
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228645443
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228643101
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228640717

Noroton

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228517283&oldid=228508422
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228517283
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228516520
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=228495019
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228724849&oldid=228724270
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=228724849

There are a number more, but this gives the tenor. I believe that legally, we should not only delete such comments from the article talk page, but also an administrator should purge the history of them.

Am I being overly paranoid here, or is this a real Foundation concern? LotLE×talk 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP covers talk pages too. If there are severe violations I would recommend removing the offending words/sentences etc and replacing them with "<redacted due to WP:BLP violation>" or somthing similar. Exxolon (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find (as I said on the talk page) that such discussion is permissible on talk pages, and that even if it is not okay the issue is not BLP nor is there much we can do about it - purging edit histories on pages this busy is next to impossible. Redacting talk page history and archives is rather extreme and will only lead to further dispute. As for the foundation I see no plausible risk. We're only rehashing well-known accusations against famous people that are made and reported thousands of times elsewhere. Whether Bill Ayers is a terrorist or guilty but uncharged of a felony, for example, is a legitimate matter for public discussion if not a helpful or pertinent thing to discuss on Misplaced Pages's Barack Obama talk page. Ayers is not about to sue the Foundation over whether he is or is not a terrorist. I don't think there's a BLP issue but if there is I think we should talk about it first on the talk page or at worst BLP/N before appealing to a general purpose board like AN/I. I really doubt there is any administrative remedy that uninvolved administrators can apply that is likely or practical. Every AN/I report arising from the Obama articles has generated lots of friction and dispute. Let's not turn this into yet another editor-on-editor fight among people from the Obama pages. Just a suggestion.... And a plea for anyone responding, please don't use this as an occasion for bashing other editors. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says - quote "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages (emphasis mine), user pages, and project space. WP:BLP violations should be aggressively removed from talk pages as well as articles. Exxolon (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's statement is obviously not policy in a literal sense. Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Read Jimbo's quote in conjunction with Misplaced Pages:BLP#Non-article_space please.--chaser - t 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Jimbo's quote. It's a rhetorical exhortation, not a literal policy pronouncement. There's no practical way it could be. Wikidemo (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

idk about blanking BLP violations or replacing them with "<removed per WP:BLP>, but as far as purging them from the history...

Delete "Talk:Barack Obama"

Jump to: navigation, search

This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions.

Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Misplaced Pages.

So, that is not an option. J.delanoy_adds 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That cant be right. It may be beyond the capabiltiies of ordinary admins, but I thinkt hat maybe a development person might be alhave access to do it. Is there a section where I can submti a requrest for deletion? Smith Jones (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, email via instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT. I agree with others commenting here that in this case it's not necessary.--chaser - t 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying that deleting the whole talkapge is the only option, but I am interested in kleanring if there is recourse in case of such extensive WP:BLP vioaltions. Smith Jones (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To Wikidemo: BLP is not only policy, it overrides all other policy. The legal issue really is central, above all content or conduct issues. In terms of purging history, I agree that the entire talk page should not be removed; admins have the capability of removing specific diffs. If there is agreement this should be done, I am happy to complete the list of libelous diffs (obviously, subject to judgment of relevant admins). LotLE×talk 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. Not technically possible for admins in this case.--chaser - t 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given Noroton (talk · contribs) and Curious bystander (talk · contribs) BLP warnings. If they continue to make such statements on talk pages of BLP's they can be blocked. I couldn't find anything on WorkerBee74, but please do post further details and I'll warn him as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, of course this would have come up on AN/I and the participants would not have been notified. No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition. Noroton (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This warning is quite provocative, and probably destructive to the notion of promoting discussion rather than edit warring on the talk pages. The ArbCom case cited is controversial, of unclear precedent, and will bring Misplaced Pages into serious disarray if used expansively as a hammer against editors voicing their opinions on talk pages. I suggest it be retracted. Wikidemo (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please explain how the same statements could have been made for years by reliable sources -- certainly anything about "unrepentant" and "terrorist" -- and the threat of libel is only visited on Misplaced Pages at this point? It isn't as if I didn't provide links to what I was saying. Sourcing my statements to years-old statements from mainstream sources is proof against libel as well as BLP violations. Noroton (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've bowdlerized my various cases in point to refer to generic persons rather than draw analogies to Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Noam Chomsky, John Yoo, and Ollie North. Not that my comments or anyone else's are by any remote stretch of the imagination going to get Misplaced Pages sued, but those who disagree with me are under rather severe censorship demands and I hate to be feel out. Wikidemo (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that I have seen complaints about LotLE×talk (who started this ANI complaint). So this person's complaint may (or may not) be biased. There is widespread reports that WP has a left of center bias, never a right wing bias. So we should be aware of others' view of WP and make sure that we have no bias.

Someone mentioned that if we edit badly we expose WP to legal risks. I favor editing well. However, there is no risk. Barack Obama is NOT going to sue WP! Presumptive (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Re avoiding appearance of any left-leaning bias): Hear hear! (And technically, off wiki, I'm Lefty.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had differences with LotLE in the past, he resolved them, and he's a good editor. Anyone without a personal bias doesn't have a personal heartbeat. He tries to promote WP:NPOV as all good editors do, and there are differences of opinion about NPOV among good editors. His opinion here is wrong, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, or that of anyone else involved. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I have not suggested nor do I propose any sanctions against the editors in question. I believe it is essential that the comments themselves be removed from WP. As long as the editors refrain from making libelous comments about living persons, there is no reason they should not continue to engage in editing and discussion. The specific diffs in question are of a type prohibited on legal advice from the Wikimedia Foundation (see WP:BLP), and should be deleted and purged from histories. FWIW, the legal risk presumably is not of suit by Obama, but of suit by Ayers... I do not believe that event is likely, but I do believe we should enforce restrictions on libel universally and uniformly. LotLE×talk 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed LotLE, what part of Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies here? Or alternately, what part of my comments were unsourced or poorly sourced? Or are you objecting to my statements on some other BLP grounds? Noroton (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Wikidemo's eminently sensible arguments above. Kelly 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

'Recommend' that Lulu finds the things he finds objectionable and that an uninvolved administrator then decide if each comment represents a libel concern and, if found, then the editor be required to source to a 3rd party the "offending" adjectives, whic should be extremely easy to do.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the set of diffs that I believe subject the Foundation to legal action at the top of this report. LotLE×talk 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE, please refrain from WP:BLP hysteria. WP:BLP absolutely does not override all policy. In fact, WP:BLP must yeild when it conflicts with WP:NPOV or any other core foundation policy. WP:BLP is not a tool for surpressing legitimate, verifiable criticism nor is it a trump card for ending discussion. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, WP:BLP must yeild when it conflicts with WP:NPOV or any other core foundation policy. That statement doesn't make the slightest bit of sense: being NPOV allows inclusion of "nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons"? Not by any rational measure. That doesn't even pass the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an extremely ridiculous thread. Calling Ayers a former, and unrepentant terrorist when he has been quoted as saying that exact same thing is not a BLP violation. At the same time, asserting that there is an issue with Obama knowing Ayers is ridiculous. However, to stop the bickering, I don't see why the "controversy" shouldn't be mentioned in the article, since it has received some coverage in the press. II | (t - c) 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

The sourcing for these allegations is what WorkerBee74 accurately describes as the "gold standard of sourcing," including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. For the legal conclusions I've reached, I cited, quoted and linked the appropriate section of the United States Code and the relevant United States Supreme Court case. The foundation for everything I've said is cast in reinforced concrete. LotLE is engaged in a garden variety content dispute, and he thinks he has found a new weapon to wield in that war. I welcome any evidence he might choose to bring, in his effort to prove that I have slandered Mr. Ayers. Until this matter is decided, I will not make any more statements on-Wiki about Mr. Ayers' activities in the 1970s. However, when this matter is decided in my favor, I look forward to appropriate administrative action against LotLE for filing this groundless report. In light of the Kossack4Truith precedent, a topic ban for LotLE until after the election would be lenient. I will further add that this does not resolve the content dispute, and that mediation would be a marvelous idea if LotLE and others sharing his position would agree to it. But they've rejected it out of hand. Curious bystander (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The sources do not resemble "unsourced or poorly sourced." Ayers discusses all of the facts in his book. He's proud of it. He constantly brags about it on his blog, on the lecture circuit, to anyone who will listen. He did it and he got away with it because the FBI botched the case. It's a shame that LotLE has resorted to these tactics and I join CB in demanding a topic ban for him until after the election, if it is not proven that a BLP violation has occurred. K4T got a three-day block for giving LotLE a warning about his CIV violations, and then K4T got a topic ban for filing ANI and AN3 complaints about LotLE's continued editwarring and incivility. So as CB has stated, precedent has been set for editors who file reports that do not produce admin action and appear to be retaliatory. The community has tolerated LotLE's misconduct long enough. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He bragged about it in his book? That's news to me. Even better. It's a confession. Curious bystander (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

May we please assume good faith? LotLE has voiced a concern from the beginning that certain material has BLP concerns, such as accusing Ayers of uncharged felonies or of being a terrorist, and has never wavered from that concern. There are sincere opinions among administrators on both sides, some believing administrative action is called for. Therefore, reporting the incident is hardly a rogue thing to do. Please allow the discussion to play out, and do not distract it with accusations of bad faith and lobbying for blocking editors merely for bringing their concerns here.

Back to the issue, I think the proper interpretation is that there is no BLP concern in the spirit if not the letter of WP:WELLKNOWN (WELLKNOWN concerns whether to add reportage of other people's allegations to the article; here people are repeating such accusations and making their own by WP:SYNTH of sources on the talk page). Ayers has been accused, publicly, many times, of committing murder, being a felon, being a communist, being a terrorist, etc. The sources are "gold standard" in the sense that there are respected publications such as the New York Times that prominently report that such accusations have been made. Ayers is a well-known public figure (and Barack Obama all the more so), and with hundreds of thousands of sources talking about his colorful past, reliable and otherwise, many far more prominent than the Misplaced Pages, he is hardly going to be injured further by a statement on our talk page. Keeping in mind that BLP is an exclusionary standard -- failing BLP disqualifies material, whereas passing BLP does not demand its inclusion; it must also satisfy other policies and guidelines, as well as consensus -- this does not mean we should add the material to the article. It just means there is no harm and no policy violation for talking about it. Indeed, if we cannot even talk about controversial material we cannot reasonably edit the encyclopedia - if BLP truly applied to this material outside main space we could not be having this discussion either. We should not be arguing the law here but it does seem clear that under US law there is nothing anywhere near libel, and that if there were even a remote hint then: (1) the Foundation is shielded; and (2) as a practical matter Ayers is not going to sue Misplaced Pages for its users calling him a terrorist. This is one of those issues where if most people see no legal problem we're not in a position to decide otherwise. So if anyone has a big concern let them file an OTRS ticket or refer the matter to the Foundation and its lawyers. BLP is contoured to be far more deferential to the reputations of living people than the law mandates. If BLP allows something to be said it's almost inevitable it will be legal.

If we can take this to its conclusion instead of infighting among editors, I think we can reach a firm conclusion that the BLP issue is moot, which should settle the issue once and for all, and prevent a recurrence of this report. However, as mentioned I do agree that the discussion got out of hand on the talk page as a matter of WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:CONSENSUS, and other things not readily susceptible to administrative action and therefore best left to editors on the talk page to resolve among themselves. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Demands for LotLE topic ban

Wikidemo, if you and LotLE and Scjessey had assumed good faith on a few occasions, I would not be topic banned right now. I SUPPORT, in the strongest possible terms, a topic ban until after the election for LotLE if there is no finding that the edits in question violated WP:BLP. Also, the past misconduct of LotLE in the form of edit warring and incivility is not such a distant memory. I will be back with citations of rock-solid reliable sources for all of the diffs he/she's posted above, and I look forward to a topic ban for LotLE from any admin reading this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. If this user is topic banned, why is he returning to the topic to lobby against other editors? Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the notion that the topic ban extends to this page is completely, absolutely ludicrous. I'll be back with those rock-solid reliable sources. After that, we'll talk about a topic ban for LotLE. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a quick administrative clarification on that? Please hold off in the meanwhile. Whatever happens please don't WP:BATTLE by banging the drum on the meta threads against editors you've had conflicts with in talk space. That's simple disruption. Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What rank hypocrisy, you've been a regular Gene Krupa. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth, as it is, a ridiculously pointy arbitration request has already been rejected on the matter, and you really need to refrain from continuing to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground. If you refuse to do so, then I think much stronger measures will be warranted to prevent you from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of BLP/libel concern

Thanks for chiming in above, Wikidemo. My concern on this report has been, and is, solely that the discussion on Talk:Barack Obama crossed a line between discussing well known reports/opinions, and stating those opinions as facts. I do recognize that a somewhat different standard applies to talk pages than articles, but not that much different (i.e. lots of things may simply not be relevant to an article that are worth mentioning on talk, but the libel standard is the same in either place). A month ago, we were seeing claims along the lines of "Ayers has been called a terrorist, murderer, etc. by reliable sources." That seems supportable, albeit contentious. In the last week, that claim has shifted to "Ayers is a terrorist, murderer, etc." which is, frankly, libel (he has never been convicted of any felony, and we cannot draw conclusions about what "might have" happened had various things unfolded differently). The only real argument I see for leaving the material is that a lawsuit is extremely unlikely, not that there is no actionable libel. I entirely agree on the likelihood matter, but I think we should follow consistent principle in the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. It doesn't look like that's going to happen though... hopefully once the current Talk:Obama threads get archived these types of libelous claims will at least go away from active pages (as much as I'd still rather see those archives cleaned).

To clarify further, I think the worst of the libelous claims are the edits that purport guilt based on specific statutes. These give the appearance of constituting legal advice or legal conclusions. I could probably trim the diffs slightly, some of those given are tweaks of other diffs in the same list without necessarily contributing additional liability. LotLE×talk 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess I just don't see it as anything urgent that would necessitate a strong remedy. The thread is going to get archived quickly from that page and the editors cautioned to tone things down in the future. I've voluntarily removed my somewhat over the top examples about Henry Kissinger et. al., and maybe we can just ask the editors involved to either redact their comments or simply promise to stay calm and leave heated political debate to another forum. If you have a sledgehamer but a screwdriver will do the trick, best to use the screwdriver. Definitely where administrative intervention is concerned, the lightest touch is the best! Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(ps - ec) Regarding the statutory arguments, I don't see debate as to whether acts constitute a violation of the law as being any different than debate as to what those acts were or what to call them. It's all the same free speech territory, and it may or may not be pertinent to improving the article, depending on the circumstances. Wikidemo (talk)

Don't forget that WP is also published in Britain :-). Libel laws there are... ummm, a bit draconian (IMHO). Truth, for example, is not an overriding defense in that jurisdiction. I'm a Hugo Black guy myself too, but I went through the BLP-wars a few years back. With some minor pride I can say that the legal threat against me (as potential co-defendant with Jimbo Wales and others) was part of what firmed up the policy. LotLE×talk 00:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not having been to law school yet, I usually hesitate from legal speculation. However, given the foundation rejected moving to the UK b/c of British libel law, I think it would be difficult to sue or collect from there.--chaser - t 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how creative some jurisdictional claims have been :-). Not excluding some interesting twists for plaintiffs or prosecutors to come up with US jurisdiction (including prosecutors currently serving in the US DoJ). LotLE×talk 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit more clarifying my take on Wikidemo's points. It seems different to me to claim "Ayers is a murderer in my book" and to claim "Ayers is a murderer under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a)". The former is still in the realm of protected opinion, fairly clearly. The latter... well, I'm not the Foundation's lawyer (but neither is anyone else in this discussion). LotLE×talk 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they're exactly the same. People have the same 1st amendment right to discuss legal interpretation as they do to discuss moral interpretations and facts. In fact, it's more likely to be opinion. For that very reason it's usually impertinent to Misplaced Pages talk pages (but not always - sometimes legal interpretation becomes a sub-issue in a discussion). Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First diff by Curious Bystander

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=228709281&oldid=228708898

Curious Bystander has cited the US Code and a Supreme Court case to support his conclusion:

18 U.S.C. § 1111(a): "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder ... committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any ... sabotage ... is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree." Section 1111(b) continues: "Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life" As a matter of law, a defendant may be vicariously responsible for the actions of his co-conspirators. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946).

Here's the text of the Supreme Court case itself :

We have here a continuous conspiracy. There is here no evidence of the affirmative action on the part of Daniel which is necessary to establish his withdrawal from it. Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 369 , 32 S.Ct. 793, 803, Ann.Cas.1914A, 614. As stated in that case, 'having joined in an unlawful scheme, having constituted agents for its performance, scheme and agency to be continuous until full fruition be secured, until he does some act to disavow or defeat the purpose he is in no situation to claim the delay of the law. As the offense has not been terminated or accomplished, he is still offending. And we think, consciously offending,-offending as certainly, as we have said, as at the first moment of his confederation, and consciously through every moment of its existence.' Id., 225 U.S. at page 369, 32 S.Ct. at page 803. And so long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward. It is settled that 'an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act.' United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 608 , 31 S.Ct. 124, 126. Motive or intent may be proved by the acts or declarations of some of the conspirators in furtherance of the common objective. Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 657 , 658 S., 16 S.Ct. 1127, 1137, 1197. A scheme to use the mails to defraud, which is joined in by more than one person, is a conspiracy. Cochran v. United States, 8 Cir., 41 F.2d 193, 199, 200. Yet all members are responsible, though only one did the mailing. Cochran v. United States, supra; Mackett v. United States, 7 Cir., 90 F.2d 462, 464; Baker v. United States, 8 Cir., 115 F.2d 533, 540; Blue v. United States, 6 Cir., 138 F.2d 351, 359. The governing principle is the same when the substantive offense is committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful project. Johnson v. United States, 9 Cir., 62 F.2d 32, 34. The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy. Each conspirator instigated the commission of the crime. The unlawful agreement contemplated precisely what was done. It was formed for the purpose. The act done was in execution of the enterprise. The rule which holds responsible one who counsels, procures, or commands another to commit a crime is founded on the same principle. That principle is recognized in the law of conspiracy when the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all. An overt act is an essential ingredient of the crime of conspiracy under 37 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 88, 18 U.S.C.A. 88. If that can be supplied by the act of one conspirator, we fail to see why the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are likewise not attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense.

It appears that according to the Supreme Court, if a conspiracy sets off a bomb in New York, a member of the conspiracy who is in Michigan at the time can be held criminally responsible for the deaths that result, unless he/she has previously taken affirmative action to disavow membership in the conspiracy. There was no such affirmative action taken and Ayers still endorses the conspiracy. Now let's talk about the federal murder statute and the meaning of "felony murder". This case illustrates how it works. When a felony is committed, and a death occurs as a result of that crime, the persons committing the felony are guilty of murder. Regarding the word "terrorist," Curious Bystander has stated sufficient facts to support his opinion and it is, after all, an opinion. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Swampfire

I have been harassed by this user for some time if you go to his User talk:Swampfire page you will see that an admin left a warning there to stay away from my talk page but he has left continued messages there. He continues to edit war on the Forrest Griffin article despite myself and all other users taking part in a disucssion, he takes the liberty of making his own edits without anybody reaching a consensus. I believe his edits are in bad faith as he has distorted the articles references to cite things that they do not reference and he has written the article so that it hides noteworthy information while pandering to his own opinion on a subject as if it were fact. I have tried to get an admin to arbitrate but my calls have gone unnoticed or ignored. --Xander756 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look into this in too much detail (I just wanted to let you know that this is being looked into), however I would remind you that rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, not when you disagree with another's edit as you did here, and at several other places in that page's history. I have removed the tool from your account - if you demonstrate that you will use it only for vandalism, it can be reinstated. Regardless, the situation will be looked into - don't think you're being ignored, and I've notified Swampfire of this discussion so that he can explain his reasoning for what's going on. Hersfold 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not used rollback function in this scenario, all reversions I have used the undo function, not rollback. I use rollback when patrolling recent changes on wikipedia or reverting vandalism on lacrosse articles as part of my function on the wikiproject: lacrosse. I would appreciate re-instation. --Xander756 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Four diffs have been left on your talk page that show the use of rollback in this conflict. Hersfold 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When you check into him. Also note the reverts that were just made. I believe Xander756 has now resorted to sockpuppetry. After he returned to the page and left the new subsection alone. 2 mysterious accounts were created the first one has one edits in it. And it was to revert my last additon. The second new account also has one edit, and it was to remove the new subsection. Kind of weird don't you think for a new user to create an account and come directly to Forrest griifins page and do this. They both seemed to remove exactly what Xander756 doesnt want on the page, and yet that are their only editsSwampfire (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also both I and User:Aktsu have rewritten this article to a NPOV. But Xander756 refuses all edits at placing it to a NPOV. What he wants said is in there, it was not deleted. It was expanded on to represent the entire scenario with valid citations. That he has removed more than once. Also he has abuse WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL while attacking me on several occasions. All of which are evidenced on his talk page , but he has tried to hide themSwampfire (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aktsu has since expressed his doubt over that edit on the discussion page of Forrest Griffin. I wonder if he would be surprised to see you are claiming him to be your ally in this? --Xander756 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 2 accounts that mysteriously showed up to remove exactly what Xander745 has been removing. The first one was Deshicalanor here is the first removal and here is the second by user CthulhuGuldo also I notice that both of these mysterious accounts showed up to remove these at almost the same time, he had his rollback removed according to what is said up there^^^^ by Hersfold. According to edits made by Xander756 he left a comment on Forrest Griffin talkpage at 5:17 then disappears, then still at 5:17 Deshicalanor shows up to remove what I had just editted and Xander756 did not want there and it is the one and only eddit by this user. Then at 5:20 CthulhuGuldo shows up to remove the subsection Xander756 doesnt want on the page and again it is the one and only edit by this user as well, Then at 5:22 Xander756 leaves a message on Hersfolds talkpage asking for his rollback back. Funny how Xander made no edits between 5:17 and 5:22 at the exact time the 2 sockpuppets showed up to remove what Xander didnt want on the page.Swampfire (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I said about Aktsu was he rewrote the article and you reverted it too. The proof of his rewrite is on my talkpage.Swampfire (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history I actually made an edit to the talk page of Forrest Griffon at the exact time this first "sock puppet" showed up. Links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Forrest_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=228752060 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Forrest_Griffin&diff=228752040&oldid=228745421 I would not be surprised if this was another scheme to try to get me into trouble here by Swampfire. Is it just mere coincidence that after these accounts showed up an IP address began to defile my talk and user page? Is there any policy against accusing people of things without evidence? --Xander756 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I already stated I have nothing to hide let them check my IP. Also I believe you left the comment on the talkpage at around 5:17:01, while already having a page open creating a new account. Then logged out of Xander leaving the new account page open and made the edits at around 5:17:59. then created a second, to remove the rest. at 5:20, then logged back in and went to Hersfold page at 5:22 to complain about no longer having rollback.Swampfire (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found a third and new personal attack on me here yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me.Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that diff that is a violation of either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

What I see here is both editors aggressively edit-warring on the Forrest Griffin article.

I propose that both Swampfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an editing restriction of WP:1RR for 2 months on the Forrest Griffin article. Should either editor violate this restriction, they are to be subject to short blocks of no longer than a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block duration may increase to 1 month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No way - these guys have never been blocked, let alone for edit warring. I'm seeing nothing remotely near the sort of disruptive behaviour need for an editing restriction. Get them to file an RfC on the content dispute - that's all that's needed for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, this was intended as a measure to be preventative in edit-warring on the article (and possibly more effective in letting the message sink in than blocks). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, let them file an RfC, if that doesn't work, then mediation might be a better course of action. All of these should be tried before we result to editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They've tried to get others input for a few days now - but it hasn't significantly changed their editing pattern on the article. I still don't see why we should wait for blocks first, or why they shouldn't be subject to 1RR as opposed to the standard 3RR per 24 hours (note - it's not the 1RR per week restriction). If it was just a content dispute in the absence of edit-warring over a number of days, I'd agree - Article RFC or mediation is enough to deal with content issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't give people editing restrictions for edit warring on an article over a couple of days. Send them to MedCab and be done with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's been 5 days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan - despite the flaming row that broke out on my talk page after I logged off last night, neither of these editors would be benefited by such a restriction at this time. Should the dispute continue - and this should possibly be considered anyway - the page can be fully protected until both sides can agree on something, even if it is just to disagree with each other. An editing restriction will just continue tensions; what we need to do is try to get these guys to actually talk to each other. Hersfold 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason that a solution such as this would be unfair is that I have been attempting to get other's input on the subject. I was the one who appealed for admin arbitration and who messaged admins in an attempt to get a 3rd opinion. I have been the one to attempt a discussion before edits while he has simply tried to force his way onto the article. To treat us both equally would then be unjust. If you look on my talk page, the other user who was involved in the debate has posted that he thoroughly agrees with me and that I was right in defending my position. Why then should I be punished for this? --Xander756 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war - yes, you did attempt to start discussion, but you then need to stop edit warring, which you didn't. It's standard procedure to treat both parties equally, as it would be considerably more unfair for us to "take sides" in that manner. Hersfold 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Hersfold. Also, it's not as a punishment - it's just so you both don't edit-war, and instead, discuss your differences rationally. Personally, I think that if both of you voluntarily agree to the restriction, you'll feel much more compelled to edit in a way that isn't considered disruptive. But if this dispute grows from being between both of you to several editors on either side, then sadly, the page will be fully protected and you won't be able to edit it at all - you'll only be able to discuss on the talk page (which is sort-of what this proposal was encouraging - discussion to the point you have consensus, rather than revert after revert). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rooting for the page to be fully protected. I requested it days ago but my request mysteriously vanished. I would be all in favor of full page protection until the discussion can reach a general consensus. As for what Hersfold claimed about how it would be unfair for you to "take sides", I don't see the logic in that. Would it be unfair to block someone from wikipedia for repeated vandalism? In effect by doing so you would be taking the side against him. Obviously nobody here would claim that is unfair, and this scenario is no different. --Xander756 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well genuine content disputes are different to WP:VANDALISM. When it's a content dispute where you both appear to be genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia/site in terms of quality, it's generally not so easy to know who's causing the edit-warring, or to rule on content (as in, who's correct, or which version should preside). Obviously, exceptions apply - and sometimes you can see who's causing the edit-warring. Ideally, all editors should follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You boldly insert something, someone reverts it, then you both discuss your differences as to why it should/shouldn't be included, or why/how it should be modified. Consensus does change over time - if someone boldly remove something that's been there for a long time or as a result of a previous consensus discussion, that can be reverted, and then the cycle starts again. When editors use the Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert...cycle (or with unresolved discussion in between each revert), it's considered disruptive edit-warring and damages the encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not how it played out at all. The other user reverted edits from the page without reason. Another user reverted his reversion. He reverted the edit for a second time so I then reverted his reversion. He reverted AGAIN and I changed it back and added a new reference. He didn't bother reading it and simply reverted it again. I asked for admin arbitration and I asked for a 3rd opinion. I even asked for page protection and NOTHING HAPPENED. I wasn't going to simply sit there for days while someone vandalized an article and the staff didn't bother to step in.--Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 'staff' here are all unpaid so it can take some time before your concerns or issues are addressed. What was the conclusion(s) at 3rd opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It never came. Though another user involved did recently weigh in on my talk page stating that he clearly thinks I was correct in the issue. --Xander756 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to log off now and won't be on for some time. I recommend you take a look at our dispute resolution system, and try either Article RFC, mediation, or if necessary, RFC on user conduct (bear in mind that 2 users need to certify the basis of the dispute). See how you go from there, and let me know of any updates (maybe tomorrow), okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over tooth advice on the Ref Desk

There's a bit of an edit war brewing over a question that (I believe) seeks medical advice over on the Science Reference Desk. The original poster sought to know whether the appearance of a new tooth in his pregnant wife's mouth was related to her pregnancy.

The established practice at the Ref Desks in response to a question seeking medical advice is to remove the question and replace it with boilerplate text (Template:Rd-deleted), along with – where reasonable – a more detailed or personalized explanation of why the question was removed and couldn't be answered. The relevant guidelines are at

• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines
• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice

I've been going back and forth with StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over whether or not this question seeks medical advice (within the definitions provided by our guidelines) and brought the matter here rather than get sucked into further edit warring with StuRat. Apparently, the matter was too urgent and important to discuss at the Ref Desk talk page prior to engaging in edit warring.

I admit that the tipping point for my decision to remove the thread was when StuRat offered his armchair diagnosis ("coincidental natural eruption of a wisdom tooth") and prognosis (normal part of human growth") to a pregnant woman.

Ref Desk posts:

• Removed by TenOfAllTrades (and replaced with boilerplate):
• Restored by StuRat:
• Removed again:
• Restored again by StuRat:

Discussions:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Tooth advice
• User talk:StuRat#RD diagnoses

I leave the matter in cooler, more capable hands than mine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to remove it, certainly a great deal of the replies seemed to take it as a request and they sure jumped in to help diagnose. that's a bad idea, and your removal the right solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be extracted. Baseball Bugs 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ba-DUM-bum. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke. It's fair to say that anyone who comes to a "website that anyone can edit" seeking medical advice might want to first make sure their life insurance is up to date. Baseball Bugs 07:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop that. We don't give professional financial advice either. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall us giving professional anything advice, come to think of it. The key here is that the question wasn't "What's the deal with new teeth during pregnancy", which would invite a general answer, but "What's the deal with this particular tooth in this particular person's mouth during this particular pregnancy", which invites a specific diagnosis of a specific situation. Good removal. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an informative note: the question's original poster has commented on the meta-discussion and clarified his intent: diff --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At two different talk pages, it is said that I opined to keep the question. Wanted to answer at this all-in-one gathering that I consistently favored to remove the question, and I thanked Ten_of_trades for his going beyond the call of duty for explaining to me personally the exact policy which he followed, and I find no fault whatsoever. I only criticize the exorbitance of creating a discussion about a discussion about a question. I summed it up already through an analogy Sentriclecub (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bureaucratic cousin to the concept of a pre-meeting meeting. Baseball Bugs 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ban Jokestress from editing the article about Simon LeVay

Simon LeVay has publicly complained about the way that Jokestress edited the article about him, pointing out that she inserted many misleading and poorly sourced claims about his scientific work, and that she was motivated to do this by personal hostility . However, Jokestress has continued to edit this page , has recently tried to use NARTH (an anti-gay organization) as a source for a quote from LeVay, and has proposed inserting further controversial and derogatory material related to eugenics . I strongly urge that Jokestress be banned from making any further changes to this article; her past behaviour there probably amounts to a violation of BLP. Skoojal (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This would be extremely unusual for Jokestress, who usually researches content thoroughly and understands WP:BLP very well having been subject to defamatory edits on the article about her. Is there an OTRS ticket? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, I do not think that this is correct. Jokestress used a defamatory quote from Roy Porter about LeVay, which implied that LeVay endorsed the use of eugenics to prevent homosexuality. Jokestress is currently proposing comparing LeVay to an infamous Nazi, Carl Vaernet. This would obviously violate BLP. Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to me more a content dispute than anything else. If LeVay has concerns about his portrayal on wikipedia which can be deemed violations of BLP, then contacting OTRS is an option. Looking at the history of the article, it seems Skoojal could be considered to be approaching ownership boundaries given the substantive nature of recent edits and edit summaries which seem to indicate writing on behalf of the subject. Minkythecat (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly every single piece of criticism of LeVay that Jokestress added to the article was misleading, and it was appropriate for me to remove this stuff (I wish I had done it more quickly). It created a very distorted and inaccurate picture of LeVay's work. In the case of the Porter quote, it was also defamatory. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jokestress has a substantial history of engaging in off-wiki attacks against scientists she doesn't like (such as by writing letters to their employers recommending they be fired), and creating (or substantially editing) their bio's on wikipedia to make the pages appear to back her accusations up. Typically, these are sex researchers who have published data in RS's that challenge user:Jokestress sociopolitical views. My opinion is that user:Jokestress is in clear violation of WP:COI in editing Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, Ken Zucker, and related pages. When contested, User:Jokestress will use the talk pages to convince other editors that off-wiki accusations should be recorded on WP, but fail to reveal that she herself was the very person who filed those accusations with the scientists' employers. For example, see Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?. In my opinion, she should be banned from editing not only Simon LeVay, but sex researchers in general.

In the way of my own full disclosure: I am myself a sex researcher. Although user:Jokestress has never targeted me (outside of snide comments she makes about me on her personal website), I am of course acquainted with some of the people she has targeted, many of whom are colleagues of mine.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This situation is similar to a number of previous situations where I have edited controversial biographies and editors with strong POVs have objected. My goal is to be fair but not to shy away from controversy. In the case of LeVay, User:Skoojal has been systematically removing quotations from noted academics and others who have drawn clear connections between LeVay's endorsement of "a new eugenics" and historical problems with labeling oppressed minorities such as gay people as biologically distinct. These include Nancy Ordover, who discusses LeVay at length in American Eugenics, and noted historian Roy Porter, whose review of LeVay in the New York Times has already been purged by Skoojal. Skoojal is also resisting any mention of LeVay's connection to eugenics, which I have proposed on the talk page before adding. Most of Skoojal's edits, on the other hand, are unilateral deletions, and his talk page gives a sense of how he interacts with other editors and administrators when confronted about edit warring and BLP (here and here). Examples:

• "I do not need your condescending advice."
• "Please don't be arrogant and tell me what to do."
• "If you yourself don't have the power to block me, you are wasting your time telling me that I can be blocked."

Just as troubling, Skoojal has been systematically removing other reliable sources he does not like. This does feel like a case of WP:OWN, despite Skoojal's claims to the contrary on his User page.

As for User:James Cantor, his first order of business involving me on Misplaced Pages was to add unflattering information to my Misplaced Pages bio: "Some scholars have likened her as 'the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort' of activist." The source for this quotation was a blog, and the quotation was made by him. Adding himself as a source for unflattering commentary in my bio reflects his ongoing efforts to suppress dissent and discredit critics of his employer, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. In other words, both complaints above seem to be based on their antipathy for me because I have included reliably-sourced but unflattering information in biographies of controversial people with whom they agree and/or work. In James Cantor's case, he has already gone through a mediation (here) for his attempts to add negative information to critics' biographies, including mine. He reminds me of other editors engaged in questionable "science" who attack biographies of scientific skeptics like Stephen Barrett. James Cantor accuses me of some sort of impropriety daily and is trying to import a style of interaction to which he is accustomed off-wiki.

Thanks to my fellow long-time editors who weighed in above. Jokestress (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress's claim above is false - I have not removed the quote from Nancy Ordover (although I may possibly do that at some time in the future if, on further investigation, I decide that it is inappropriate). The 'quotations from noted academics' were deeply misleading in almost every single case. Jokestress's quotations from me are also misleading - most them in fact apply only to one edit warring incident and none of them apply (as she implies) to BLP. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The COI seems pretty blatant at Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?, but past precedent doesn't give me any confidence that proper action will be taken in this matter. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can ban her, but a review of Levay's critique certainly would be right about the duplications being unneeded (id they still exist.) However, looking over the linked articles, she certainly seems to be heavily pushing an agenda against anyone who suggests that homosexuality may be genetically predetermined. If a ban is placed, it probably ought to be a topic ban on the topic of 'research and researchers into the causes and origins of homosexuality', so as to widely cut her off from causing fights, while certainly allowing her to continue editing articles about gay and transgender (transsexual? gender Identity? not sure which is PC these days) topics, like activisms, histories, protests and conferences. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed an odd ending to the article; we don't need to attack fellow editors, nor ... SOAPBOX... (i messed that up in the edit summary)... about how accurate it is. Levay can go to OTRS, he can register and bring this all to the article talk, or other options, but let's not play childish games on the page. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my removal of a WP:SOAPBOX vio is causing troubles at the page now. I removed it because it's a poorly worded attack on Jokestress, citing a blog-like essay by the article's subject, which at best is a Primary source, not personal essay (blog?). I feel that regardless of her behavior, and of the fact that I support a broad topic ban for her, per my suggested definition above, the article should not become or be used in any way as a platform for him to war back with her. This is better accomplished by linking his essay to the talk page and reviewing it to fix the problems. I took a once over of the article, where I find a lot of time being spent playing with refs and warring over how to snipe at each other. most of the article consists of pulling out Levay quotes and SYNTH'ing up an article. Frankly, locking the regs out for a week and bringing in one of the rescue squads would do more than anything else. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that ThuranX is on the right track, but I believe also that genetics of homosexuality is only one of several agenda’s Jokestress is pushing. Another such topic is conversion therapy. Conversion therapy (or reparative therapy) is a process by which some clinicians attempt to change homosexuals into heterosexuals (usually with some levels of homophobia and religiosity motivating the endeavour). In order to discredit him, Jokestress recently started pushing the agenda that Ken Zucker engages in such therapies (which he does not). Jokestress tried changing the definitions on conversion therapy to make it seem like he does , editing Ken Zucker’s bio to make it say he does , adding the same text to the bio of Susan Bradley (a colleague of Zucker’s)], and editing new pages to express the same idea yet again ]. Thus, I believe a broader topic ban is in order.

I believe that SashaNein is correct to note Jokestress’ obvious COI with regard to J. Michael Bailey. However, Jokestress’ off-wiki involvement includes many sex researchers, as noted above. Her personal website include copies of her own letters to scientists’ employers and others. Thus, this too suggests (to me) that a broader topic ban is in order.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that Joketress is doing the right thing. Can we take a breather and look into this before a topic ban? Bearian (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. And since I'm such an obvious moron for ever thinking otherwise after reading multiple pages and essays, I'm going to kindly go fuck myself. I recommend the same for anyone else NOT bearian. He's got this covered. ThuranX (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone ThuranX's change to the LeVay article. It is extremely unusual to attempt to deprive LeVay of the chance to respond to misleading and defamatory accusations about him. Giving LeVay the chance to do this is not a 'childish game' but a perfectly appropriate response to James's insertion of rubbish into the article about him. The fact that Andrea James is a wikipedia editor does not mean that she is above criticism. Skoojal (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Agnistus

I'd like to bring to your notice some harassment from an editor named Agnistus, who I came in contact with whilst editing the article Zakir Naik. What started off as a small edit war over what to include and what not in a WP:BLP, has now turned into a kind of mischief that he's begun playing on me. He has
a) stalked me to see what other article I was editing and then left behind a personally attacking comment on that article's talk page See
b) Asked me for my personal details (phone number and email ID) saying he wanted to talk to me on phone. See
c) Then, when I politely declined to divulge personal information , he said (in an innocent-looking manner) that he also wants to discuss some stuff regarding Islam (I think that was because I've mainly been editing Islam-relating articles out here and also because I am a Muslim). Thinking him to be a genuine inquisitor I agreed to answer his queries if I could, but he has now converted the discussion into a kind of argument and is posting my answers (from this section of my talk page) onto Zakir Naik's talk page, and is making now personal attacks towards me and Islam (See Edit summary -> in general. I've asked him to not spam that talk page with irrelevant information and proposed (in good faith) that we continue discussion on my talk page; I've even initiated it myself by replying to his comments on my own talk page and left a link to it on Zakir Naik's. But his latest comments on my talk page say he wants a kind of public debate (about Islam?) so that people may benefit from it See , AND he has also given me comment containing a block-warning for having made recent edits to Naik's article (please note that the edits in question are being discussed over on the talk-page and there has not been any consensus towards them. Agnistus has chosen not to take part in the discussion, and rather issue a warning (?) to me).
d) It also seems that he's had a history of making personal attacks against other co-editors on WP as well and has also been blocked for a 24 and 72-hour periods for such behavior .

Well, I guess I've written quite in a lot of words what could have been conveyed in a few; I hope someone takes notice of the situation and does what might be needful to end this harassment. Thanks for your help. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am partial to the dispute in question, I do think the vandalism warning is out of order in what is clearly a content dispute on a BLP. Elazeez, I've placed a note on your talk about this, but one should refrain from off-topic discussion on article talk pages, as it can often impede effective dispute resolution. Agnistus' previous behaviour for which he has been appropriately sanctioned is irrelevant unless there is evidence of further problematic behaviour. That said, I have requested that Agnistus refrain from making accusations of vandalism and that he participate more constructively in the discussion. ITAQALLAH 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Enforcing Neutrality/User:GreenEcho blocked indef (Klaksonn-related)

Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) (alternate account GreenEcho (talk · contribs) has just been blocked indef for the never-ending unacceptable behavior (massive edit warring, incivility, combative attitude, never AGF plus the blatant sockpuppetry record). This can be summarized as follows:

• This user was caught operating a sock farm a few weeks ago (more than 15 socks making us believe they edit from different continents). This user attitude's has been related to banned user Klaksonn (talk · contribs). See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Klaksonn and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Klaksonn.
• This user was given a chance partly because we don't have Klaksonn data to compare with. Though we could block him for ban evasion (blatant similiarities in behaviour), this user was instead restricted to use 3 accounts for three different areas of interest. A few weeks later we discovered that this user chose to abandon them and create new ones in clear breach of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. So this user has been given another chance for a fresh and clean start a few days ago. After a long discussion between him, me and a few admins, we finally agreed that he'd keep the newly created accounts (Enforcing Neutrality and GreenEcho for two different areas). That was our belief in a fresh start. Some admins believe that was lenient. Yes, it was. It was leniant but the purpose of it was to show this user the basis of out Misplaced Pages concept of forgiveness and flexibility. user:Enforcing Neutrality was unblocked hoping it would be used to continue an ongoing mediation process. Alas, he's not got back at all to that mediation since his unblock. Instead, hes engaged himself in continuous edit warring with different users in different articles. He has accused some of taking advantage of his block to try to unprotect one article. He had been informed that nobody took advantages of anything. Once unblocked, he didn't retract that accusation. He used it again and asked that the article remains protected. In contrast, he went to the RfPP to request an unprotection for another article where he was edit warring with other set of editors.
• This user is misleading everyone when stating on user:Enforcing Neutrality's user page that "". This is avoiding scrutiny and is totally misleading of course.
• This user has appeared dozens of times here on AN/I. Everytime for a different issue. Everytime involving different users. Most of the time, he'd be the one who starts threads here. See above thread for yesterday's example.
• This user incivility has been noted plenty of times. Nothing changed and this could be a clear sign that this user can be no one else except Klaksonn (talk · contribs).

There could be another chance to be given to this user but the direct links which lead us to banned user Klaksonn (talk · contribs) (through Kloksmann (talk · contribs) that I got to know about lately - CheckUser was done by another colleague) leaves us no other choice now except getting some peace and order. Therefore this user is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Klaksonn/Kloksmann (ban evasion). Indeed, Klaksonn was blocked by user:BrownHairedGirl was blocked for "Persistent incivility and disruptive editing."... an attitude very familiar to this user and to many admins. Please review. -- FayssalF - 13:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support FayssalF's action. (I had blocked GreenEcho earlier for a 3RR violation). More background on the case, including a previous unblock discussion, can still be seen at User talk:GreenEcho. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Count me among the admins who view this as overly lenient (perhaps no surprise there). This guy was strongly suspected to be a reincarnation of a banned disruptive user and was caught red-handed using about 13 accounts simultaneously? And the response was to restrict him to "only" 3 accounts? I'm not opposed to second chances or forgiveness, but the editor in question clearly didn't perceive this as a second chance or accept that he might bear some responsibility for the situation, which is a recipe for failure. The guy was totally unrepentant and finally offered a grudging non-apology apology where he explicitly stated that he didn't believe he'd done anything the least bit inappropriate. He's then been complaining in an entitled fashion about which 3 accounts he was restricted to, complaining that people dare to checkuser him, and complaining that people are actually keeping tabs on all of his socks.

I appreciate that this was done with the best of intentions, but sometimes I wish we valued our constructive, law-abiding contributors more. Giving this guy 3 socks to edit-war and file frivolous AN/I complaints, when he's not been willing to meet anyone even halfway, seems almost disrespectful to the people who are the targets of his edit-warring and vexatious litigation. Good editors burn out fast here, and the effort spent trying to rehabilitate unrepentant sockpuppeteers could be better spent supporting them. MastCell  16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. I think the unblock was not inappropriate, but this user has just squandered his absolute last chance. Mangojuice 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced info

Chris0619 (talk · contribs) repeatedly adds unsourced info to various bio articles, often with unsourced quotes and/or BLP-issues. Does not respond to warnings. Final warning 24 July. I reverted two additions today on Ciara for unsourced quote and WP:BLP issues. Requesting short block to get user to respond to issue. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention that he/she has been previously blocked for this same issue. Blocked for 1 week with a warning that continued behavior like this will lead to a much longer block. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon vandal/harrasser

Dear Admins, I am being harrassed by an anonymous editor, editing under the IPs User:59.92.45.199, User:59.92.42.151 and User:59.92.27.210. I know his anon status makes things hard to deal with, but maybe you could have a look nonetheless. Str1977 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.139.247 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Quicklinks: 59.92.42.151 (talk · contribs · logs), 59.92.27.210 (talk · contribs · logs), and 86.29.139.247 (talk · contribs · logs) - Eldereft (cont.) 15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

I notice there is no section specifically for reporting admin abuse. I doubt this will do any good, since it doesn't appear Misplaced Pages is concerned with punishing cases of corruption despite its inevitability within a system where one group has power over another group or groups, but well, Tanthalas39 is a corrupt admin. For example, check his edits from July 24th on Hilscher. He accused user Hilscher of using an account for nothing but vandalism when this was not the case, then reverted the attempt to contest the block and protected the page. While the user was clearly being disruptive, and possibly also trolling, it is clear the account wasn't only being used for vandalism, and there is no accounting for the same admin indefinitely blocking, reverting the contest, and protecting the page. Someone who does that does not deserve admin privileges. Similar incidents are throughout his editing record, if anyone bothered to take a look. No body can say I didn't try. --66.190.62.245 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The situation speaks for itself, I have no comment at this time. Tan ǀ 39 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Spent 5 minutes looking into this, and now I want my 5 minutes back. Completely baseless complaint. Tanthalus' actions are fine; one unblock request had already been declined by another admin, Tanthalus removed a second, abusive unblock request and protected page to prevent further abuse. We're better off without Hilscher. --barneca (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this help desk thread. Tan ǀ 39 16:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like a reasonable block. More to the point, you are obviously Hilscher (talk · contribs) (et al.) using an IP to evade your block and complain about it here. If you'd like to appeal the block, please take a look at the steps listed here, or consider emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, rather than dodging the block with an IP and posting an apparently groundless accusation phrased in the third person here. MastCell  16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, Tan. Didn't your momma tell you not to join cabals? L'Aquatique 23:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by 138.88.35.77 in Edit comments

See the edit history of 138.88.35.77 which matches the pattern of 69.143.196.173 who has only recently begun editing but has already established a record of ill-considered and intemperate language in edit summaries/comments. Similar comments appear in the same articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

Certainly inexcusable edit summaries. Try leaving a more stern warning on their talk pages if they do it again, and if it continues, a WP:WQA might be in order. Juliancolton 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, appears to be the same individual. Left final warning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in my opinion WP:WQA isn't really a good venue for things like this. Since very few admins hang out there, the best we can do is ask people to stop. If it's a dispute between a couple of long-standing accounts, talking things through at WQA is extremely helpful. But if you are talking about a disruptive editor who has only recently begun editing, especially if it's an IP, WQA isn't really equipped for it. The person has no incentive to compromise (since they are on an IP with not many contribs) and since very few people with the banhammer hang out at WQA, the most likely result for something like this is, "Hmm, yes indeed, that is unacceptable. Try ANI." heh ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jablonski

Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I removed two items from this disambiguation page because they linked to articles that had been deleted for notability reasons. They keep getting re-added by various anonymous IP's, several of which have been blocked immediately thereafter as open proxies. One of these entries is about a computer programmer. Hmm.... I suspect socks. And last night a new anon IP vandalized my user page. So what can be done about this? These "editors" will not respond to my attempts to communicate. I'm bumping up on WP:3RR, so I'm bowing out of the edit war, but I think this page may need semi-protection and these IP's may need to be blocked. At the very least this page needs more eyes patrolling it, as we're either dealing with a sophisticated sock puppeteer or a bunch of meat puppets.

• 163.139.53.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - single edit "account", vandalism to my user page.
• 193.146.209.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - two edit "account", revert of 5th removal (my 3rd revert) and 6th removal by User:Duffbeerforme
• 80.191.160.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - single edit "account", revert of 4th removal by User:Caiaffa, now blocked as an open proxy.
• 72.52.220.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - two edit "account", both reverts of my 2nd and 3rd removal, now blocked as an open proxy.
• 72.148.164.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - four edit "account", revert of my 1st removal, vandalism to Arab, and a self-reverted vandalism to Nuthatch.

Steve Carlson 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR. The additions are in clear violation of the disambiguation page manual of style. swaq 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and fixing it for a 7th time. My interpretation of WP:VANDAL and WP:3RR is that this behavior is tendentious editing, but assuming good faith, not necessarily vandalism. Am I understanding that wrong? Steve Carlson 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article for a few days. Hopefully our IP-hopping friend will get bored and move on to something more productive. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that will help. I will keep an eye on the article after next week and re-report it here if it continues. Bracing for another personal attack on my user/talk page.... Steve Carlson 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. In this case with the obvious block avoidance I find it hard to assume good faith. swaq 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now this person has actually created an account, Billthebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has started making disruptive edits to other Jablonski-related articles:

• Jablonski diagram
• Jablonski by Pahls v. United States

Steve Carlson 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

155.212.94.131

Please see recent contribs: Thanks. — Alan 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can report things like this to WP:AIV, but I've blocked it for 6 months as a {{schoolblock}}. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the link - will use it another time. — Alan 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reporting it! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 and his attacks

Libro0 has made several personal attacks against me, has abused the suspected sockpuppet system by branding me a sockpuppet because I disagreed with him (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy) and now has accused me of Wikistalking because I legitimately moved an article about an obscure soccer team from St. Matthew's to St. Matthew's (soccer team), replacing St. Matthew's with a disambiguation page with over two dozen common uses for St. Matthew's. (I should note the only reason I stumbled onto it is because I am keeping track of him making sure he isn't spreading any more lies!) I tried to get him to stop going after another user (and vice versa) and he brands me a sockpuppet. He would not even consider going into mediation with he other user! There seems to be no listening to reason with him. Apparently if you do something that upsets him you are a sockpuppet or worse and he'll make some passive aggressive uncivil comments about you too. This Libro0 is a problem user. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs? Bstone (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The sock puppet report is a bit hard to swallow. While there do appear to be a couple of potential "socks" of Baseball Card Guy (although even then it looks more like he forgot his password or something -- there are only 2-3 uncontroversial edits for each of those accounts), the vast majority of the editors accused appear to just be folks Libro has had disagreements with in the past.

If a CU is available, a quick way to resolve this might be to have one of them take a look at the SSP report. If it comes back the way I think it will, then that would be some damning evidence against Libro (and if I am surprised by the result, it could vindicate Libro and be pretty damning to Your Radio Enemy) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your 'monitoring' of me is what got you into trouble, so why keep getting yourself into more trouble. I left the bballcard pages. Yet this and this showed up. I underwent relentless harrassment here, here, and here. I got to the point I had to get my userpage protected. The sock report shows still more stalking. Jay here seems to think there is a whole slough of people that I have had disagreements with. Hardly. What has transpired at the bbcard pages is that I have been prevented repeatedly from making corrections and adding information. I am the only user there that has chosen to engage in proper discussions. Valid statemnets regarding policy and sources meet with the ususal comments of 'you are being uncivil' and avoiding a clear focus on content. I have been the only one to compromise. As I have said before, any review of my edit history only shows that communication and compromise are solid character traits of mine. Granted I have always dealt with legitimate users that are willing to discuss policy and content in a ratioinal manner. I cannot say this for the accused. I believe it would be better to simply review the edit histories than to provide 500 diffs here. Libro0 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Levin Edits, Trouble Brewing

There is currently an edit war going on over at the Mark Levin page, radio host. I posted about a similar dispute that arose a few months ago, and now the trend is happening again. Two users are at the center of this. There is one user who adds content that may or may not warrent inclusion, but doesn't copy edit well enough so that it is encylopedic, nor does this person take the time to find reference for it. A second user keeps reverting it, not assuming good faith, not giving a chance for discussion, includes insulting edit tags, and seems to refuse to engage in discussion claiming that it was "settled months ago" when it was not; furthermore this person has a history of malicious sock puppetry accusation, both time accusing me in his edit summaries. Both of these users are behaving so poorly that it is fustrating, I've tried to get somewhere, but just been insulted for my time. Also I let the user who accused me of being a sock that they were way out of line and told him to engage in the discussion rather than simply reverting. I don't think that this will happen though, the edit history does not bear it out. Please when an admin gets a chance can they step in/monitor the page and issue some warnings? Editing is fustrating when this sort of thing happens. Rocdahut (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ynot4tony2 (talk · contribs) and 74.68.132.134 (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hrs for edit-warring. Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock report with broader issues at hand

I would like to try to get some Admin input to this sock report sooner rather than later. I have outlined my position and concerns there.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lynch2000s

Lynch2000s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I'm not sure where to report this, so I'll post here. This isn't really serious, but the user keeps adding unnesecary piping (|) to links and italisizing where it isn't nessecary. The user has already been told not to do so, three times, and likely has stopped, but there remains about three dozen articles in which this is still present. I'm reluctant to use any rollback, because this might be good-faith, but undoing takes an hour. Please advise, and try to help out if you can. I have already told the user this absolutely isn't nessecary, except when italisizing publication titles, etc. Thanks. ~AH1 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the user's edits are OK, the user appears to be a sockpuppet of Lynch1000s (talk · contribs). Thanks. ~AH1 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also of note, dozens of overwikification edits have been reverted after posting the first request to refraim from doing so see the users talk page User talk:Lynch2000s - most of the reverted edits have not been listed. Dbiel 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked Lynch2000s indefinitely for block evasion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is acceptable as long as you clearly explain any non-obvious reason for reverting. — CharlotteWebb 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the block of the sockpuppeter be restarted (Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy)? Ian¹³/t 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo and JJL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I unarchived this because the user came to my talk page looking for help but it's not really my area of expertise, so I'd like some more eyes on it. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended that the major parties take the three sections on the disputed historical origins and split those out into three subpages, one per major origin theory / history viewpoint. This seems like it would allow all three historical viewpoints to be described in more detail in a less confrontational manner than fighting over it on the main Taekwondo page... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV fork and certainly is not a solution. You need to follow the normal dispute resolution process. If negotiation fails you try mediation, if mediation fails, the only other option is ArbCom. Admins really shouldn't start weighing in (in our capacity as admins) in a content dispute. --Selket 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POV content fork - there are competing theories regarding the issue, and there's nothing wrong with separate articles for different theories. Asserting that admins can't informally mediate or suggest options like this is bizarre... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there were two separate thoughts that I tried to get into that post. I did not do a good job distinguishing them. My apologies for a very confusing post. What I meant was that (1) POV forks are bad and splitting the history of TKD into three articles each on one of the three different, competing theories about the origin is a POV fork. It also doesn't solve the problem because something must still be in the TKD article. Also any dispute about whether sources are reliable will now be spread over four pages rather than one. The other thing (2) that I was trying to say was not in reference to you, Georgewilliamherbert. I just meant that we should not take sides in the content dispute as admins. We should either act as admins and remain neutral in this particular dispute, or take a position but not in our capacity as admins. We should not jump in and say "I'm an admin and this source is reliable", which I feel some posters above may have been requesting. --Selket 23:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

robj1981

why is robj1981 allowed to edit???? he seems to constantly be in trouble with other user. he is not a very nice editor. he is uncivil editor who is always on civility patrol. can you make him go away already. He runis everything he touces and is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem. is this community so blind they can't see thru this stuff? He is always running to ANI telling on people and doesnt even tell people when he does it. very uncivil. he has 28 days left on his ban to serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.42.104 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on "is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem" I think it safe to assume that the above IP is a block evading sock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm looking into it a bit more I'm reasonably sure this is either User:SLJCOAAATR 1 or one of his friends meatpuppeting for him. (See his talk page to see what's been going on). I've hardblocked the IP for a week, which is a bit harsh I know but this sillyness needs to stop.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock chasing

Been chasing Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Way4743 all day. Is there any recourse for us here besides what I've been doing? Can we find IPs and rangeblock? Tan ǀ 39 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you try an IP check at Misplaced Pages:RFCU#Requests for IP check? Also, is this just on one article so you could semi-protect for a bit, or is it all over the place? --barneca (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected the most frequently vandalized article, but it's a bit random. I haven't taken it to RFCU because, well, that page isn't very user-friendly. Maybe I'll give it a shot; it's a bit intimidating. Tan ǀ 39 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "request for IP check" part is easier than the "normal" RFCU part; just create a subsection and follow the yellow brick road directions here. --barneca (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate when request directions are so damn specific. Can't just link the SSP page, gotta break out all the users with the CU template. Ugh. Tan ǀ 39 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have to link *every* sock with the CU template... you can list three or four and then link to the SSP page, saying "and numerous others listed here...". Though the more you list on the CU request the better (easier for the CUs to do their job that way). It's not that big a deal - if I have a lot of socks known, I cut and paste a line with the blank CU template and then just fill in the usernames for each line. I can do 20-30 users in a minute with two browser tabs and that setup... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you tell anyone I said this, I'll deny it, but occasionally if I just can't face creating an RFCU report, I've mentioned an SSP case on a checkuser's talk page, instead of filing a report, with mixed results. Depends on the checkuser you choose, their mood, how nicely you ask, and the results of a random number generator.

Hey, tell you what. If you haven't done it already, do you want me to do it? --barneca (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I may not be Xeno, but I have my moments. --barneca (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MountCan, probable sock of banned User:House1090, causing trouble again

I requested a checkuser from Alison a few weeks ago on this account, result was: "likely." I didn't take action because it seemed like he was doing no harm at the time, but he's acting up again, so requesting an indef based on his contributions today, particularly to User:Haha169's talk page. Thanks, Amerique 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more information on User:MountCan: MountCan's edits at Chino Hills, California are very similar to those of House's sockpuppet User:Ie909: This one yesterday compared to this one on November 7, 2007. The pattern of edits try to change things about the San Bernardino, California area. His edits seem fairly consistently involving that geographical area and have the same poor grammar, like his entry on my talk page here, as House. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check also Alanray's talk page:User_talk:Alanraywiki#Chino_Hills_Vandalism. This guy House/MountCan is probably a kid, but he's a nuisance that continually makes unsubstantiated accusations and mainspace messes. The rationale for the prior ban still holds. Amerique 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do me a user cheak to stop this rummer type sort thing I am not House MountCan (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling this one  Confirmed based on updated evidence; geolocation, checkuser evidence, and the stunning similarity to the already-blocked User:Salcan including IP range and various other technical details - Alison 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alison. First admin to uphold the prior ban and indef MountCan gets a California barnstar from me! Amerique 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Norman Francis

There's an edit war going on over at Norman Francis between two anons. One is adding unsourced personal opinion and the other is removing it, neither using edit summaries or discussing the changes on the Talk page, just reverting back and forth. I've issued a 3RR warning to both of them, and a BLP warning to the one inserting the personal opinion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 4 days. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Annoying Elspeth Monro vandal is still vandalizing

I keep coming across this person who likes to use Misplaced Pages as a personal game. They vandalize mainly talk pages and user pages, create socks, then accuse their own socks of being Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before placing a phony indefblock tag on. They also add Elspeth Monro sock templates to the talk pages of already blocked vandals and sockpuppeteers. This is the most recent edit I've noticed, by chance . It's annoying, frustrating, and obnoxious that this person is allowed to just keep vandalizing at will, building up their fake vanity list of blocked socks, etc. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look briefly through the edit histories of the IPs and socks you'll find stuff like this . Each sock leads to another sock or IPsock as they all put fake templates on each others pages. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

check this out as well. Thingg 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

if this user has alread ybeen indef-blocked, wat more ccan be done??? Has anyone tried issuing a warning? Smith Jones (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards