Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

---

Mantanmoreland and Bassettcat

What now for Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss, Overstock.com & Patrick M. Byrne?

Since we will now presumabley have no base against which to compare ip addresses (in the case of slips by socks) and that the individual who abuses these multiple accounts will doubtless continue to attempt to manipulate these articles, and will try harder to remain undetected, what can we do to protect them from editing by this person - short of deleting them as not sufficiently notable, and as a vandal/puppetmaster magnet, which was rejected when I proposed this earlier? I suggest that the articles be protected so only admins can edit it, and the talkpages be semi-protected to disallow manipulation by ip/newbies who may also be the same individual. I do not see any of these articles as sufficiently common knowledge subjects that would attract passing ip/new editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Securities fraud to the list as well. The greatest challenge is that editors knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to really root out any subtle POV have shown little interest in editing the articles involved; I can't entirely blame them, as there is such scrutiny and they would have reason to believe there might be difficulties. I've done what I could with Securities fraud given my limited knowledge of this subject; and User:John Nevard, a regular editor on Naked short selling, has identified a preferred version for that article. That probably isn't sufficient though; I'd love to find a few editors with expertise in this area to really clean up the financial articles. The biographies are in better shape, I think. Risker (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being intimately familiar with this situation, I think the general approach for sock-infested articles is to semi-protect. Make the COI-nik work a little to auto-confirm his sockpuppets before he uses them; more than that is not necessary or productive, and is likely to shut out legitimate editors. To make it perfectly clear: do you really want to prevent me from editing these articles since I'm not an admin? (Not that I really care to edit them anyway, but I'm just asking about the principle.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shalom. More eyes and hands are a better solution. Why not ask members of the Finance, Companies and Business and Economics wikiprojects if they would help out? None of these projects is very active, but there are dozens of editors there with an interest or knowledge (or both) in the general area. Better to intensify our openness than radically restrict it. At least, we should try that first. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did solicit the assistance of Business and Economics shortly after the Arbitration Committee decision[1], and received only one response to my request[2], although other editors may have responded directly on the articles. I would be happy to continue to keep an eye on the articles, even semi-protect them and/or provide visible administrative support for neutral editors, but perhaps others might have more success than did I in recruiting editors with subject matter expertise. Active recruitment is probably needed, so anyone who knows an editor who's capable of doing a good job should go out and ask them personally to pitch in. It's an area of the encyclopedia where I've never really wandered, so I have no real familiarity with who's got the editing chops for this kind of assignment. Risker (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks. Some will say that any comment from me must be self-interested and biased, and hence must be ignored. I suggest, however, that such is precisely the knee-jerk thinking that let this problem persist so long, and so egregiously. When one discovers that one holds a belief in error, it is not enough simply to root out that error: one must retrace the thinking that led one to hold that error, and consider the possibility that other beliefs one holds are similarly misguided. After taking so long to get you good people to open your minds to a truth that could not be synthesized within your paradigm, now that you are there, please, please consider the following claims without reflexively responding with the obvious "oh you must be biased" stuff. You have to rethink everything you believe about this situation.

1) I concede that the perfidy of MM/GW is extreme: most people, when caught, understand that they are caught. Few can just stand in and refuse to own their acts so steadfastly, so brazenly, as MM/GW did here. It is hard for normal people to imagine such a person, so the length it took it took this community to get the joke is understandable. No blood no foul. But now that you get it, you should go back and reconsider some things you think you know. For example, I promise: Judd Bagley, Wordbomb, is the good guy. He saw what was going on, and tried to unmask MM. He thought this unmasking was for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. He may have violated some rules you have (remember, he was new to them all), but in retrospect, now that everyone clearly understands what MM was doing, does anyone really not get that Judd was trying to stop a guy who was manipulating everything that Wikipedia is about? If you see MM now in a new light, should you not see Wordbomb in a new light as well?

2) Some answer, "But what about Wordbomb's smear campaign?" To us, that is just more Bizarro World. MM hijacked pages on Naked Short Selling, twisting the facts so they read like something out of People's Daily. That coincided with a smear campaign against me and the company for which I work, so as to undercut our efforts to get the mainstream press interested in this financial scandal. Judd/Wordbomb tried to expose what MM was doing: in MM's Bizarro World that was translated into "Wordbomb is running a smear campaign".

3) Each time I try to get involved it's rejected with a claim along the lines of, "Byrne's just mad that the article about him is unflattering." Come on. That is not what this is about. There is a cover-up of a financial crime going on, Wikipedia has been used in that cover-up, and we're trying to break through a cover-up.

4) I did take a crack at editing the Naked Short Selling article, which in the eyes of any serious observer is laughably slanted, thanks to MM. Because I knew that some would claim that I was biased, I kept my edits substantively neutral. The content of the article as it stood ended with a section that was supposed to have claims from each side represented. However, the anti-NSS points were kept to a minimum, and were so badly written that they appeared to mean the opposite of what had actually been said. The pro-NSS claims were allowed to be far more numerous, and they were repeated over and over throughout the article. That was ridiculous. So I reorganized the article, keeping all the material that was there, but cut and pasted so that the start was simply factual, then had a section explicitly stating all the pro-NSS points, and another for all the anti-NSS claims. The point of view that opposed my own was completely retained, and simply brought together as one set of explicit statements. That was clearly intolerable for MM, because it created the possibility of the anti-NSS side then having a section where its own points could be stated. Thus my version was reverted and reverted. I challenge anyone to look at the version that I wrote and name anything missing in it from the current MM-approved version. It's all there. I just cleaned it up so that the MM claims no longer permeate the article, but have their own discrete location. I really do think that it would be a good place to start fixing the current article.

5) If you don't do that, you should consider just canning all the articles in question, and starting over, only with tightly-controlled involvement of well-known Wikipedia players. These events were not a random accident, or just a result of one guy, MM, having a fetish for this subject. There are reasons that he went to such elaborate lengths to corrupt them. Those reasons have not gone away. If you try again from scratch, there are people who have an interest in seeing those articles corrupted again.

6) Lastly, once again I request that you ask yourself, Cui bono? Who benefited? Did MM do this because he is just a nut? Why would it be important for someone to go to fanatical lengths to hijack a page concerning a financial crime? Now that you have as a community realized what MM was up to, you must ask yourselves, why? Otherwise, their disinformation campaign will find a new avenue of attack. (If you want to know how all of this fits into the bigger picture, I suggest you read Mark Mitchell's article on the front page of DeepCapture.com.) PatrickByrne (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The financial dispute does not interest me and is frankly out of my depth. As a Wikipedian I care about keeping the site honest--I'm a geek who volunteers for an encyclopedia. I'm asking a couple of uninvolved people who have good editing records, some knowledge of the topic, and zero prior involvement to give these articles a look. It's the best and fairest I can do in this very odd situation. Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While Mr. Byrne see's something behind MM's disruption, I see all too many folks attempting pov pushing and article control on articles that don't have such a potential repucussion to others. So, I'm not neccessarily buying that point. However, the fear shown by so many of us for so long over this issue is hopefully over. Off Topic but, would mr.byrne be able to get wordbomb to distance himself from his attempts at outside damage of the project? (this may have happened already, I don't check those places, and only look in at the 'Board of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth' very rarely). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would consider your sweet reason more plausible were it not for the fact that all of WordBomb's well-documented odious activities and blatant harassment and stalking were conducted at your direction, as your employee, in your interests, on your payroll, from overstock.com IP addresses, over two years. Nothing Gary Weiss is claimed to have done comes anywhere near that. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your commercial interests. Go away. - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb maintains that he acted alone at the start and was only later hired by Byrne. Do you have a citation to support your contrary assertion about the timing of his employment? --Random832 (contribs) 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea when he started, and can't seriously consider it makes any difference to his well-documented (in Reliable Sources, no less) activities since. Don't be bloody dense - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry David, but odious behaviour on the part of one party does not excuse odious behaviour on the part of another party. We're supposed to be grownups here, not grade schoolers, and we're supposed to be writing a factually non-biased encyclopedia - at least that's what it said on the flyer. Every knowledgeable person I have spoken to has indicated that the financial articles edited by Mantanmoreland are subtly but clearly slanted. Comparing the level of nastiness of these two "problem" editors (both now site-banned) is not getting us the result we need, which is non-biased, factual articles on these subjects. You've been here a long time and know a lot of editors; perhaps you could help out in identifying and asking some people with knowledge in this field to review the articles and clean them up. Your assistance in improving the encyclopedia would be really appreciated. Risker (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not claiming Mantanmoreland has acted wonderfully - but Patrick Byrne is the still-ongoing funding behind one of the sides (his paid meatpuppet WordBomb), weighing in as if to help - he isn't here to help Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, but in an attempt to continue the battle; encouraging him in any way at all doesn't help the project. I expect Overstock is attempting a fresh press push on the matter and is seeking quotes to mine - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct, David. All the more reason for us to get our house back into order and get these articles into decent shape. Will you help to find editors knowledgeable in this subject matter, and encourage them to participate in the cleanup of these articles? Risker (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

David, the evils of Patrick Byrne is not the topic under discussion. How about commenting on the content, not the contributor - what should Wikipedia do concerning the articles LHvU lists? Neıl 龱 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm glad to see DG here. DG, have you apologized yet for your wrongful block of Piperdown? If not, why not? What do you really know about the issue? The Wikipedia world wonders. Cla68 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that DG, this remark was uncalled for and inappropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 - considering your conduct is currently at Arbitration, you may wish to consider this unhelpful off-topic interjection. I will simply say, it did not at all inspire me to gain the impression, "this is someone who wants to reduce distraction, close down disputes, let problems get resolved, sort out misunderstandings, cut down emotive drama spirals, encourage calm thought, get more light than heat, and not escalate problems". This is exactly the kind of concern being expressed by others about your judgement and conduct, at RFAR. I figure its best to point this out, since a live example is often helpful.

Please, think again, change conflict-style, seek advice from others you trust who don't seem to have these issues, or something. It would be helpful and genuinely beneficial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject, FT2. Cla68 is 100% correct when he says that Piperdown is owed an apology. DG made a bad block and it is high time he owned up to it. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, I'm going to ask you the same thing that I've just asked David Gerard. You too have been here a long time, and you may well have contact with some editors knowledgeable enough to bring these articles back to where they should be. Will you help in identifying such editors and encouraging them to participate in cleaning up the articles? That is what we're trying to focus on in this thread. Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Cla68 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Risker, if you need it, I'd be willing to help on the cleanup too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick -- being candid here, and diverting to discuss WordBomb briefly since you raise him, this was an off-wiki dispute of zero interest to us. It was mostly due to WordBomb's own activities against editors and administrators who tried to deal with the dispute - and not Mantanmoreland - that the Mantanmoreland Arbitration case was handled as it was, which confused a lot of people. WordBomb's catalog of improper actions over time shows a history of reliable testimony from a wide range of users, indicating threats, coercion, intimidation, and the like by email. Crude hacking. And of course, sock puppetry. One webforum disabled images specifically to prevent his abuses. See my comments at the time. None of this was okay, and that means both were at fault, not just one.

None of this off-wiki dispute matters to us. The Wikipedia community just doesn't care about the Overstock dramas or those people involved. And I have no illusions: your presence here and the same Overstock issue are not entirely unconnected; WordBomb (I gather) has acted as your employee or the like, in these matters. In this context, the hollowness of the following quote is very unpleasant:

Patrick Byrne: - "I promise:... Wordbomb is the good guy... He may have violated some rules... trying to stop a guy who was manipulating everything..."

No, Patrick. That isn't okay, or even representative of the case. Your "promise" means little to me. You introduced WordBomb, your apparent employee, into this thread, and so David Gerard gave you the brief summary. The detailed one is, what Mantanmoreland did pales into insignificance compared to WordBomb's actions. Do not introduce on the back of a discussion of banned user X, an attempt to whitewash equally banned and far worse user Y who seems to be your employee, I gather. We need none of that. "He may have broken some rules"... That alone has to qualify for most understated statement of this thread.

We are an encyclopedia here, not a battlefield for gamesters. Two gamesters and a number of each of their sockpuppets have been removed. Administrators will likely remove others as we notice them. My apologies for being blunt, but I'm not minded to smokescreen on this one. Thank you.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Spot-on; well said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I'll just say the problem with much of this evaluation is that it fails to consider where Wikipedia acted hostilely toward WordBomb, how early it did this, and the extent it has done this. Clearly at some WordBomb went into "battleground" mode, but he wasn't the first, and the fact is at least the main person he was allegedly stalking seemed as interested in personal campaigns and PR wars on his blog as WordBomb was. Anything recent has to be seen in the context of the Wikipedia campaign that has also been carried out against him. This isn't to say WordBomb's actions have been better than anyone else's, but that when someone is in active battle with Wikipedia, it's worth being a little circumspect at some point about whether there aren't grievances on either side, and about how we judge them. It's also one reason why Wikipedia should work harder to avoid these types of battles, even with people that are seen as unreasonable, the primary issue where I think Wikipedia should realize it has slipped up here. Mackan79 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, the stuff that went on bears no resemblance to what you're describing. It went far beyond any of the kind of things your comment suggests you have in mind. Although these are valid considerations in some disputes, on the stuff I see on arb records, these kinds of reasons carry no weight at all. They were far beyond any kind of act which these comments or mitigations might apply to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that wb's actions have been more egregiously odious than mm's, I submit that we (as en.wikipedia) pushed his unbalance button and set him on a course of awful activity that will very likely never allow him to return as a productive member of the community. Could we have known that he was easily unbalanced and prone to counterproductive and hurtful behavior? no, but we could have acted with a bit more explaination and good faith on day one and perhaps have avoided all this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, he was never a productive member of the community. He behaved inappropriately from the word go. He went after SlimVirgin because she dared act on his initial unacceptable behaviour. Wikipedia is not so desperate for contributors - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deserves no defending, lest we forget what she and her "wikistalking" crusade did to GraceNotes RFA last year. Her bee-in-the-bonnet approach to so-called harassment has been an utter disaster this project, produce not one single improvement, and caused plenty of drama. Please do not represent her as some sort of hero and reflect on your support for her highly questionable actions. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

People, please, not another repeat of the same old primal scream. I know, I know -- it's important that other editors know the backround and we must answer the incorrect statements someone else made. I'd like to propose a simple rule: If anyone in the future ever makes a critical comment on WordBomb, Mantanmoreland, Patrick Byrne or about any actions anyone made in this case, here or elsewhere, at least provide a diff to something, preferably to a statement with its own diffs, as Mackan79 just did. Educate, don't excoriate. And if we don't have anything further to say about helping these articles stay unbiased, it might be helpful to close this discussion soon. This is the opera's final act and the fat lady is clearing her throat. Noroton (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have WP:BOLDly gone and protected the named articles, plus Securities fraud per User:Risker's request above and at my talkpage, for 3 months and semi-protected the related talkpages per my initial suggestion and the couple of positive responses to my comments (before it degenerated into the same usual round of partisan comments regarding a banned user who was - and whisper it LOUDLY - fundamentally correct in their original complaining postings regarding an editor who was abusing alternate accounts when editing these articles). The afore mentioned "debate" also provided another rationale for the protection of the articles; we need uninvolved admins and editors to review the content of these articles sooner rather than later, and create the NPOV articles the subjects deserve. Per Risker's comments, if there are other articles that need protection to allow a consensus to form for the NPOV editing of the subject please note them here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• This seems like a thoroughly excellent idea for sanity's sake - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support protecting these articles, given their troubled history and the quite significant possibility that MM will continue sockpuppeting (and will continue improving at it) in order to manipulate the articles. It is best that a consensus is worked out regarding all changes before they are implemented. I'd also suggest an especially strict application of the civility policy for the associated talk pages. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Gerard, I see precisely the same old "Argument from Stern Authority" that corrupted the discourse so badly that it took your community about a year to see something that is blindly obvious to everyone now. I would have thought that having on your hands three articles whose history more or less indicts this project (including one on me) would have taught you a little humility. Instead, you repeat tired claims in the hope it makes them sound true. The fact is, Judd followed the rules in trying to expose MM, and SlimVirgin posed as a neutral arbiter but betrayed that role. Your founder, Jimbo Wales, interceded and asked the entire community to take his word that he had checked into it, and MM was not a sock-puppet. Judd/WordBomb got crafty, indeed, but in the end proved that SlimVirgin was wrong and Jimbo's word was false. Bombast all you please, but the fact remains: Judd proved that your system itself was in the wrong, but had to step outside your system to prove it. Was he right to do so? I think yes: The fact that Wikipedia still holds as a constitutional principle that WordBomb is wrong, but prevents precisely one person from engaging in that debate (WordBomb himself), tells me not only that he was right before, but also, that the deeper significances of l'affaire du MM has still not sunk in. Until you permit a free debate on this subject, you may as well be lecturing me sternly about the unanimity of popular support for Kim Jong-il in North Korea. Besides that, most of your claims about Judd are just flat falsehoods, which everyone would understand if Judd was actually permitted to defend himself in the discussion rooms of "The Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit!" And lastly, No, I will not intercede with the press and Judd. Partly that is because Judd is his own boss these days. Partly because they are calling him these days, trying to get their heads around this story, and he has waited for that for a long time. But mostly it's because it appears that Dave Gerard's kind of nonsense still corrupts the discourse here, so Wikipedia will never address some fundamental truths about itself, so someone else is going to have to write it for them. I regret that - I am not a vengeful guy - I don't give a toss about the page on me. I see many here are honest and straight, and seem to want to do what is right. But I still see other playground bullies toss their weight around here, and as a result this community let a cover-up persist. You have taken care of the MM problem, but you do not yet see that this all happened because you jettisoned basic procedural fairness, and until this community reclaims it I am not inclined to request that Judd not answer the phone. As far as I can tell, the free press is the only thing that got this community acting with any decency so far. Respectfully PatrickByrne (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Byrne, it's a bit more complicated than that. I nearly did a serious sockpuppet investigation on MM/SH last September, but distaste at Mr. Bagley's investigative methods was a major reason why I held back. So it wasn't until January when the two account histories got parsed in a serious manner that persuaded most of the Wikipedians who followed the issue. Yes, this site's system could be set up better--yesterday I blogged about lessons learned from this case--yet it's Wikipedia's own internal mechanisms that succeeded in bringing MM's siteban. It shouldn't have taken this long or gotten so bitter; this was not well done on any side. Durova^Charge! 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PatrickByrne, you're promoting drama, more drama won't help Judd or help you accomplish any other goals, and it diverts attention from the constructive task of setting these articles right for the long term. This isn't the place. With respect, please stop.Noroton (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the matter this discussion is ostensibly supposed to be about: Protecting the pages for three months has two negative effects: (1) Mantanmoreland has time to develop another sock at the same time that (2) no one is likely to get interested and involved with an article they can't edit for three months. If MM returns, or if other POV-pushers show up, we are less likely to have a healthy number of editors who are up to speed on naked short selling, etc. and who can spot POV pushing. If we can instead somehow recruit interested, knowledgeable editors, the problem is likely to be solved in the long term. And "long term" has been a very important element of this dispute. If the articles are going to be protected for three months, then at least do some more recruiting of editors near the end of that period, when it counts. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the MM ARBCOM case I said: ... Also, suggest that the committee invites amicus briefs from recognized experts in the articles concerned - this could aid both the case itself and also help to benchmark the articles – luke (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC). Unfortunately the Committee weren't listening, nor were they listening when Lar asked: "the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred" ??? Surely that's a jest! How much more corroboration did you want? Is that actually the case that the committee failed this way?? Then things are possibly worse than I feared. Please put a finding in that states it plainly so it can be voted on, I'd like to see who on the committee actually thinks there wasn't sockpuppetry. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) and 19 people agreed with the request. The Arbcom case was a lost opportunity to settle the issues surrounding these articles without the latest dramatic developments, and the arbiters failure is a standing reproach to all then on the committee.--luke (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine idea to solicit expert opinions. Problem is, Wikipedia has a bad name in academia right now because the professors encounter us mostly via nineteen-year-old plagiarists. We need to do better outreach and reach the point where that plan becomes more viable. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If that was in reply to my comment, I'm only suggesting recruiting Wikipedians -- in fact, just repeating Risker's previous call for volunteers, only trying it at a couple more WikiProject venues. Asking outsiders to come in and learn Wikipedia ways is unlikely to work, especially in the short term, especially in this case. Noroton (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's a good bet that experts don't care to be thoughtlessly reverted. Whether they be wikipedians or martians they'll naturally hope for their contribution to be valued. -- luke (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (reply to Noroton) Thanks for reading! I had hoped the 3 month period would have shocked enough editors to start discussing that... and how the articles should be tackled. I am all for a shorter period, since it is my suggestion that improvements to the article space should be discussed on the various talkpages and neutral admins enact the consensus. Once a NPOV consensus version of an article exists then the full protection can be reduced to a semi (just to stop drive by partisan vandalism by ip's and throwaway accounts) and all edits judged to whether it improves the article while remaining NPOV. I would still semiprotect the talkpages for the same reasons as for the article page. I would hope, with a consensual NPOV page in place, that even the most sophisticated sock couldn't slant the page as it would be reverted as would any editor introducing bias (and the type of bias would raise the suspicion of those watching the articles). I believe that Risker and a couple of others were hoping to see if they could recruit some uninvolved editors to review the articles, and hope that this is the start of some decent work on the subject(s). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, that sounds pretty good. It'll all depend on recruiting those editors. I recommend thick amounts of flattery verging on the fulsome and liberal sprinkling of barnstars once the initial work is done. Noroton (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • (reply to Noroton) I agree we should dispense with the drama, but ask merely that in thinking through the strategy for what to do about these pages, we do not flush the drama down the memory hole: it existed, there is a reason it existed, and we should remember that those dynamics may persist in trying to disrupt any new formalization of these pages. I also agree with Noroton that freezing these pages for three months is a bad idea: such a decision would merely further the agenda of MM, once again. I suggest, however, that there are great big chunks of the current page on Naked Short Selling about which all sides would agree. One possible approach would be to strip the article down to those pieces, and start there. I have made my own effort in that regard, cutting the current article from 3,500 words to 2,100 words. I took out anything that either side would side was a distortion (MM would say that I took out hard facts, I would say that those facts were either carefully parsed, or misleadingly stated, or were not facts at all: for example, the repeated citing of SEC statements from 2005, which have been contradicted by very recent statements). In any case, rather than both sides fighting about whether I cut was or was not neutral, I propose that the reader look at what is left. I do not think there is a sentence in this new version that either side would feel was misleading or inaccurate. If we can get consensus there, then we have a starting point from which to rebuild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting_stripped_down PatrickByrne (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What I parsed out of that page protection was that 3 months appeared provisional--in order to discourage antics--until one or more people who understand the subject (preferably with honorable edit histories and no involvement in this mess) evaluate the content and draft useful improvements. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes - but then most long term time limits (including or especially indefinite) are absolute maximums against which good editing can "earn" reductions. As I said, I hoped the term might have provoked discussion regarding tackling dealing with the subject since my initial post was only a suggestion. I am glad that it appears to have been tentively adopted as a solution, but I am more than open to futher comment, fine tuning, or abandonment in favour of a better method. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Durova - Peace. I understand. There is a drawback to what you propose: the universe of people who understand this stuff is tiny. The intersection of that set and the set of people who edit Wikipedia is more tiny still. The intersection of people who understand this mess, edit Wikipedia, and are not somehow involved in it in the real world, is the null set. I can recommend people to come help (economists and lawyers) but because I recommend them, some will say they must be on my side. So.... How about a combination of two approaches? First, start with the pared down article that I have presented, that has no single line to which anyone, from either side, could object. Then everyone who wants to be involved could submit papers and recent articles on this subject, for a neutral team of Wikipedians to read, and gradually use in fleshing out this article. (There is another alternative: look at my other sandbox article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting : every line that is in the MM-approved version of the NSS article, appears here to. However, I simply structured it so that all the tendentious stuff from both sides was explicitly culled out of the main article, and deposited in the end.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickByrne (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC) PatrickByrne (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Just check the edit history of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. This ridiculous war has been going on for months now, and I know for a fact that it was brought here are least once before. Uuu987 (talk · contribs) and Verklempt (talk · contribs) ought to both get final warnings over edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What solution do you suggest? uuu987 ignores attempts to engage on the talk page. I really do not know how to deal with such an editor.Verklempt (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start by knocking off the blanking. Parsimony and context make clear that the reporter quotes the report, then quotes the individual's response. Stop playing this stupid gotcha game and work on improving the article. ThuranX (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The speaker's identity is not at all clear. To infer the identity is to engage in original research. Furthermore, the previous statement contradicts the allegation of Indian ancestry. To elide that statement is highly POV. Finally, anthropologists and most indendent geneticists agree that DNA testing cannot establish ethnic identity. To include such pseudoscience in Wikipedia is a significant error, especially given that it is sourced only to a local tv news report.Verklempt (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So... you won't stop playing gotcha games then. Ok. Well, Push your POV away, then. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are denying that there is a substantive disagreement, and instead engaging in a personal attack. This is not nice.Verklempt (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If this continues, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prima Facist

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

Someone (possibly Majorly (talk · contribs), who seems to hold a grudge against me) has created an account "Prima Facist" and used it to support RfAs that I have opposed. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but in this case the combination of the choice of username, signature, and contribution history ([3]) makes it clear that this is nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to parody and ridicule me, rather than a good-faith attempt to help Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Prima Fascist about this thread. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've notified Majorly, who may be interested as well... Fram (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I was just getting ready to do so myself (I'm on dialup, and my connection died right after I posted the above) when I saw your posts. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not Majorly, but I am an alternate account of a different Wikipedian, having been using ym primary account for ~3 years. I admit that the initial intention of this account was merely to "cancel" Kurts votes in RfA, because I percieve the statements he gives in opposes are personal attacks. This changed after the first edit I made, when I decided that maybe I could do some actual work from this account as well, lest something like this happened (alas, too late it seems). I had that signature for one edit and then decided it would be a bad idea and that it would be too close to a personal attack and would be quite hypocritical and so I changed it to what it is currently.

Once I get a chance to escape the pressures of every day life, studentism and such, I shall be doing a lot more substantial work on articles (which, I'm sure you'll agree, takes a lot more time than simply voting in an RfA or two) and I'm sure you'll see that this account is quite serious about wanting to improve the encyclopedia (even if its inital intentions were not so). Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that an admin removes Huggle from the user - a disruptive sock puppet should not be accessing such tools. EJF (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any disruption yet. Martinp23 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't use huggle anyway, not being an autoconfirmed user (yet) Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should probably point out that I was one of the earliest users of huggle and have made thousands of edits on my other account. Prima Facist 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if and when the sockpuppet policy is breached, a post is made here and action is taken. Until then, nothing is being done wrong, I feel (though do enlighten me if I'm indeed incorrect). Martinp23 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Martin. I will not be using this account to double-vote or do anything else in breach of the sockpuppet policy. Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prima Facist/Aha! is, interesting... Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is still nothing that requires administrator action. Nor has there been any violation. seicer | talk | contribs 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting it may be, but no-one has yet voiced any opinions on the page... Prima Facist 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I missed something, but Prima, are you admitting to having another account? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Prima Facist 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever participated in the same RFA with both of your accounts? · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. And as stated above, I never will. I have been here for 3 years, I'm aware of sockpuppetry and am not partaking in such. Prima Facist 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it does like this the sockpuppet policy is being violated, per WP:Sockpuppet#Avoiding_scrutiny. Or do I misinterpret that? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not unles you assume the account is going to be used disruptively. It would be better for the accounts to be linked in some way, but I don't think the policy requires it Fritzpoll (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale seems to think so. Prima Facist 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, creating a new account in order to make certain types of opposes in an RfA could certainly be considered disruptive. This means we can't review a certain users voting history in an RfA, when said user wants to vote for a certain reason... they just log into another account. Also, I just don't see how this account is anything but trying to avoid scrutiny for the other account. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The user says they aren't going to use the other account for the same things, and there is not reason to disbelieve them. If the two accounts do demonstrate similar editing patterns, however, I'm sure this would be picked up in time - especially since the RfAs this user contributes to are likely to be watched carefully for patterns of support/oppose by other accounts. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But Fritz, I do doubt that Prima Fascist will ever be abusive as sock in regards to double-voting or messing with consensus. I'm not suggesting that is the problem, but rather this account was created in order to avoid scrutiny over certain types of votes in RfAs. It looks quite clear to me in policy linked above that this isn't allowed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

My proposal, in the spirit of WP:AGF, would be to ban Prima Facist from participating in any RfAs for at least six months (to avoid the account becoming a point-driven SPA sock), tell him not to use the "Go Clots!" sig anymore (which he/she already agreed to), and move on, with the understanding that there will be zero tolerance for any disruption coming from this account. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Go Clots" signature went after one use, when I decided it was a bad idea. My other account does not vote in RfAs of users I don't know anyway and I have promised, several times to not sockpuppet by dual voting. If I wanted to do that, I'd be a lot more discrete about it (This is not a self-invocation of WP:BEANS, incidentally). Prima Facist 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But Prima, the actions you are taking in this account are being done because you didn't want to do it in your main account, correct? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't creating an account that directly mocks a user who himself creates drama... thereby leading to the creation of additional drama, an act of disruption? Hiberniantears (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think disruption would rather much end the sweeping assumption of good faith needed to get by the poilcy against undisclosed multiple accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, we should encourage people to give their honest opinions without having to hide behind some special purpose account. Honesty helps people work together better (as long as they're mature enough to handle it.) Friday (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought my proposal to simply ban PF from RfAs and let him go was very generous, and the fact that Prima Facist is intent on using this account for RfAs is not encouraging. PF, could you please explain precisely why you want a WP:SPA for RfA participation? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it purely for RfA participation. I intend on using this account for a substantial amount of article work independent from my other account. Prima Facist 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have basically the same issue. PF has admitted to creating the account for the porpuse of SPA socking. Isn't that, in itself, enough to PermBan the username? I appreciate his candor in revealing his intentions and have no reason to doubt his sincerity but the fact remains that he did create the account to oppose Kurt Weber in RfA's - that's a banning offense, no? Padillah (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, using an SPA to vote in an RfA would tend to skirt most of the need for responsibility, accountability and trust. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Starting with the username and there on out, the sole purpose of this account appear to be to launch a personal attack against Kmweber. Unless someone can present some compelling reason why socking to engage in personal attacks is acceptable, seems like an automatic indef block. WilyD 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punishment; I just wanted it to stop. If he says he'll stop, give him the benefit of the doubt. That said, I think it would be appropriate to know his true identity, so we have a starting point should he try to circumvent this by creating another SPA to do it again. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting punishment. The guy (or lady) already has another account - let them use that. WilyD 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have another account. I also edit anonymously sometimes. I will never double-vote so there should be no problem... Prima Facist 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between admitting that an undeclared sockpuppet who does nothing wrong is unlikely to be recognized, and supporting the sockpuppet account once it is recognized. The general intent was wrong, because one is responsible for ones votes at AfD, and it is only fair for someone to know where any opposition comes from. The specific intent was to engage is a possibly dubious voting pattern without having the regular WP identity be compromised by it. I think we should give amnesty to the sockpuppeter in appreciation of the honesty of his confession, but block any admitted undeclared sockpuppet account. PF, would you consider making it easier for us and agree to this? DGG (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of amnesty if PF stays away from RfAs for a set period of time. Otherwise, it is too hard to police whether the account is still being used for its original nefarious purpose. Another possibility would be if PF provided an excellent reason for using the account for RfA participation, but I don't see that happening. If he wants to participate in RfAs, he can do it using his established account, or he can rack up a few months of solid contributions on this account to prove the account is no longer operating with the sole intention of undermining Kurt Weber. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted a trout on Prima Facists talkpage asking him to retire. I strongly believe the account should be indefblocked as disruptive, pointy, and most importantly, as a really really really stupid idea. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The name is having a go at KurtWeber's use of "prima facie" in his replies on RfAs. It is sort of having a go at that and almost saying KW's a fascist. The account should at least be renamed, IMHO. Sticky Parkin 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooo, that was not clear, at least not to me.

Yeah, I would say a soft-block and if whoever PF is wants to create a different account, so be it. I see no legitimate reason for him/her to continue using this account. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article work seperate from my main account (which I have stated in several places is my plan for this account). Prima Facist 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one of these two options are probably the best: either PF is indefblocked, and he/she goes back to his main account, or PF is renamed and agrees not to participate in RFAs. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, to those who say I will sok on RfAs and double vote: There are several users who know the identity of my main account. If they are happy with it, I am prepared to list them here and they can "monitor" my voting if it will make people happier. Prima Facist 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I don't care if you double-vote. The concern is that you are socking so that you can participate in RfAs without accountability. You have not explained why. If you really want to separate your article work from your main account, that is fine -- the Prima Facist account can remain (albeit perhaps with a different username), it can work on articles separate from your main account, and it is banned from RfAs. What is the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to be accountable (on this account) for my voting (from this account). I really have little interest in RfAs save for editors I know personally (for which I will vote from my main account). I have an issue with Kurt's personal attack way of opposing people and I will vote solely to counter that. It is a given that he will oppose every self-nom, yes? What, then, is wrong with me supporting every self-nom? Prima Facist 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel if someone created an SPA to only vote to oppose self-noms? Kurt's opposition is at least logical. Yours is pointy. Indeed, your actions are genuine WP:POINT, whereas Kurt's (despite some people thinking them WP:POINTy) are not. In some ways, you are teaching people what the real meaning of WP:POINT is, and that could be good in some ways, especially if it helps you to understand WP:POINT a bit better. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Prima facist has been indef blocked by Gwen Gale. Out of fairness to Prima Facist who can no longer post here, closing the thread.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

CheckUser?

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

---

This may be a little moot now that Prima Facist (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked, however, there may be a very good faith admin behind this, and it would shocken me for an admin to go and get away with, quite frankly, gross misconduct in sockpuppetry. I strongly believe a CheckUser should take place so that we can find out who it is. If it is an admin, then they maybe should be desynsopped. Does anyone else think a CheckUser should take place so we can find out the culprit? D.M.N. (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The account is not an admin, is in good standing, and is an otherwise unremarkable, non-controversial and productive editor. Thatcher 19:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, the person's not an admin. But surely this (what the good standing editor is done) is disruption, isn't it? The fact that only a small group actually know who the other account is needs to be addressed, I think we all deserve to know just who is behind the "Prima Facist" account. And in my view, the good-faith editor should be blocked for a short time for sockpuppetry and evidently creating disruption. I think the rest of us deserve to know who it is. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please also reveal his home phone number, employer and SSN, so that we may harass him more. Thanks! LegitAltAccount (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • So "bad hand" accounts are to be tolerated now? And no-one ever asked for anything but an account name; that's not personal information or private at all according to the long-standing official interpretation of the privacy policy. --Random832 (contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed. We've had too much abuse of bad hand accounts in the past. The main account needs to be revealed and sanctioned. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We won't be able to burn him without his personal identification. LegitAltAccount (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If there's no reason to believe the user is going to operate other bad hand accounts in the future, and this really is an isolated offense, I think forgive-and-forget should apply. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. PF was blocked because he made it known the account would be used for bad faith RfA contributions. If Thatcher strongly believes that the user in question is not going to use their account for malicious wrongdoings and not going to open another bad hand account, what is the point of blocking them? Heh, after all, unless you are going to hard block their IP (assuming it's even static), the user could just create another good hand account.

It's appropriate that somebody did a CU, and I imagine the user in question is on a sort of Double Secret Probation right now. But unless there is reason to suspect future disruption, what is the purpose of publicly disclosing the account? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That aside, who is "LegitAltAccount", which was just created to troll in this thread? Is this the same person? --Random832 (contribs) 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, geez, I didn't even notice the username. We need a CU here If that is the same person, then it's not an isolated incident and we have a serious problem. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please. Although this IP nettle cracked me up I'm starting to wonder if the soft block is enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think we definitely need a CheckUser here now that a third account has popped up. I'm confused at the message on his userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the editor's master account can be quickly found by looking at the IP's contributions – is a CheckUser really necessary? EJF (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. Besides, I can't tell anything about the master account from looking at the last 5 to 6 edits (unless I've misread something). D.M.N. (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious Prima Facist, be already know that. The question now is, what is the good hand account? Because, sadly, that needs blocked too (very sad to see a good faith editor go down because they are obsessed with making a WP:POINT, which is why I advocated leniency earlier, but at this point I don't think that's any longer an option) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this guy is that he still thinks he did nothing wrong. After 3 years here, he should not only know better, he should know that he's lucky he didn't get banished for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've raised it to a hard block. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm drafting up a request for checkuser now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prima_Facist. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a hard block really necessary? --Conti|✉ 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't bother. LegitAltAccount is not Prima Facist. I can't identify a main account, and he may in fact just be an IP editor who registered that name for trolling purposes. But he is on a different continent than Prima Facist. I am also not vouching for the future behavior of Prima Facist's other account, I was simply verifying that he is not an admin and has a clean record. Thatcher 22:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Astral has shown up asking for the hard block on PF to be lowered to soft. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have softened the block. Martinp23 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I feel I need to say something here. WTF? LegitAltAccount was nothing to do with me. I have no idea who the fuck it was (Although my suspicions say it was Kurt trying to cause trouble). Raising the block to a hard block based on that and my comment on Gwen's talk page was, IMO, completely out of line on Gwen's part. If you read the rest of the conversation aside from the diff Gwen posted, you'll see that she blanked an edit I made and then protected the page. When I asked her simply to revert that edit she did so but also unprotected the page, against my original request (which was a simple locking). Using the admin tools to be heavy handed with someone you've disagreed with is completely out of line. There was a good reason I wasn't forthcoming in revealing I was behind Prima Facist. I knew that the two accounts could be linked quite easily, given a little research, expecially after I posted from my IP. Even after Thatcher gave his staement above, the block stayed in place. Gwen should be desysoped for this level of abuse, she was way out of line. All that said, I'm done with enwiki now. There is so much bullshit and drama here and a lto of the admins need to learn what is and isn't appropriate behaviour for them. For once, I agree with Kurt, ironically enough, when he as said that admins need to remember that they are servants, not masters.

I was quite prepared to carry on and try and do something productive for this project, but I refuse to do so as long as Gwen has admin tools. Goodbye Astral (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

'There is so much bullshit and drama here...' Ah, for a rolling-eye smiley... HalfShadow 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, ironic, right? Recently we've had the whole fiasco over NYB, the drama about the_undertow and LaraLove and all sorts of other shit. If I had any faith left in the community, I'd start a RfC about Gwen's conduct, but I don't think it would get me anywhere. My thanks are extended to MArtinp23, Thatcher and Conti, who appear to have been the only voices of reason here. Until next time, Astral (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you leaving? Or was that drama, too? HalfShadow 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kettle, meet the pot. One user alone is not a master either. Plus, for the record, the checkuser results have come back. Although you aren't LegitAltAccount, the results speak for themselves. Would you care to explain? Nwwaew (Talk Page)

(Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I freely admit to being Prima Facist. It's not hard to work out why I did it. Astral (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Was that a dig there? Leaving is not an immediate thing. I have stuff to sort out over the next few days, editors to thank, pages to be tidied up, etc. When I leave, I will do what I did with Prima Facist; remove the email address and type gibberish for the password so I can't login or retrieve the password again. Astral (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The disheartening parts are that (1) a user on here for 3 years thinks sockpuppetry of this nature is no big deal; and (2) there's an admin who also thinks it's no big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was no big deal. I intended to use the account as a true alternate, but never got the chance... Astral (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your own words indicate that you intended to use it to counter the votes of another user while keeping your normal ID distanced from that. As a 3-year veteran, you should know that's a bad thing to be doing. FYI, I don't much care for admin self-nominations either. But when I happen to get involved in those discussions, I don't hide behind a different user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my! Have you actually read anything I've said? I said it was intended as an alternate account and that I would also use it to vote on some RfAs, due to believing that what Kurt does is a personal attack and also unfair but having a policy of not voting on RfAs of editors I don't know using this account. Astral (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I had it switched around. Either way, what you did is wrong. Why the need for a second account? Why hide? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I stated, it was going to be a legitimate alternate account because sometimes I like to escape the pressures of an account where a lot of people know me. I also decided to use it to "fight" an issue I feel strongly about. It was a bad choice of username, really (although I thought it vaguely amusing at the time). Had I done it under any other username, no-one would've noticed... Astral (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What "pressures"? Editing here is voluntary. Any pressure is self-imposed. And if you feel strongly about an issue, such as an RFA, you should be a stand-up guy and say what you think - under ONE account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. We'd be suspicious of your behavior. And if you believe what Kurt does is a personal attack, why not start an RFC against him? Why not use the legit channels already set up? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you know? If I had a good history of solid edits, I could easily "negate" Kurt's RfA votes without giving a reason for my vote and no-one woul ever know. (Please remember, I'm talking about *had* I done this, not "if I do this now"). As for RfC, it's been done. People have complained about Kurt often enough and nothing has been done. Astral (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because she knows that Kurt has a right to make the contributions he does as has been validated numerous times on ANI/RFC/Arbcom. Creating disruptive accounts, has never been tolerated. I have ZERO problem with the block and would have no problem with sanctions against Astral as well?Balloonman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I was asking how you'd find the account. I know for a fact there are at least two other editors who only vote in RfAs to cancel Kurt's votes. I defy you to tell me who they are. Astral (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it's true that he's already being outvoted 2-1 by others countering his votes, you didn't even need to be voting in those RFA's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Things seem to have got somewhat out of hand here. People need a break over it. I'm archiving the above section and expect it to remain as such for the next 9 hours at least, to give everyone a change to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Anyone who ignores my doing this will be "in trouble" (don't ask me how! just AGF for now). Why am I doing this? Because I'd rather see people listening to eachother than posting blind comments - and I don't want to see this project lose another good contributor. If I have to, I'll delete the section from this page until a fair time period has passed. Thanks, Martinp23 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Conti|✉ 00:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks Martin. Remind me to buy you a pint if we ever meet IRL. Astral (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Martinp23. Personally, I think ANI has been having a bad week all round. A previously unsuspected effect of global warming, perhaps? Deor (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying global warming is responsible for people ignoring the sock puppetry rule? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying that there are several threads currently on this board in which a number of normally rational admins seem to have lost all sense of perspective. And that's all I have to say. Deor (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The rules are important and must be supported by all admins. As an ordinary editor and an observer here for awhile, I expect users to make excuses for their behavior. And I expect admins to do their jobs. Mostly, they do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the user in question admits to violating the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry rules. And it seems to me like violating those rules should be considered important by every admin in this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are volunteers, just like everyone else - it isn't a job. Neıl 龱 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For sure. But they do have a responsibility that goes along with that volunteering. And I don't think it's fair to characterize my calm and reasoned questions as "drama". Here's an example of "drama" (with apologies to the user whose page I borrowed it from): [4] Now, compare that with the comments in the above section. For real drama, you need lots of capital letters and exclamation points. There's hardly any of that here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...Martinp23 not only refuses to condemn, actively condones and defends a clearly unacceptable act, and then when someone calls him out on it he takes that person to task and threatens anyone else who might point it out? Something's seriously not right here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin's comments on my talk page indicate he was just playing with our heads a bit. I recommnend we just leave this be for now, as the sockpuppeteer has indicated he is done with wikipedia in any case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

? Martinp23 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's terrible logic Baseball Bugs. You don't "leave it be" when someone robs another, just because they say they won't do it again. Some sort of action needs to take place for this atrocity. Monobi (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Atrocity"???? Dude. It's a WEB SITE. Somebody made up a character to tweak somebody on a WEB SITE. Against policy? Yup. Dumb? Probably, yeah. An ATROCITY? Sure. Whatever. Overdramatize much? (/disgusted rant)Gladys J Cortez 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a tad overstating things. The sockpuppeteer claims that both his accounts, Astral and Prima Fascist, are done. At one point he was advised that if he was to do "legal" sockpuppetry, he should do it in a quiet way. My guess is that if he comes back, under a different ID, he will stay low-key. If not, he'll be spotted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been unblocked, so I have to come here to say a few things.

First off, I think the checkuser was completely uncalled for and I'm upset at how it came about but ho-hum, that's all water under the bridge now so no moint worrying about it.

Secondly, I'd like to publicly apologise to Gwen for some of the things I said; specifically that I wouldn't re-edit until she had been desysopped.

See you around, Prima Facist 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

School Threat

Resolved

 – They're "going down" on a field trip. Oh boy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Diff. I think we all know what to do. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

wrong diff. Sorry. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: bstone is making the call. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24 hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't fight me on this Monobi.... CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fighting you, I was right. It wasn't a threat at all and just wasted a few Kb of space on the servers. Monobi (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing I'm just slow, but I'm not seeing the "threat"... --Onorem♠Dil 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is none. They're going on a field trip. Bstone Confirms. :( Sorry, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. Have our amateur police gotten this far off track? Friday (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. My first thought was... Going where? to the lighthouse? It didn't say 'going to blow up'. Sheesh. Find the real threats and act on them. Somerville cops must be laughing up their sleeves at us now. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems most of inserted "GOING DOWN" in our minds, my apologies as well >.<...better unblock the IP.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably good to warn the light house folks. I wouldn't put it past these kids to bring markers and write on the walls, the scamps. Friday (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been known to happen. --Onorem♠Dil 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I talked to the superintendent of the district. We confirmed this is a location they are going on a school field trip. Once we figured out this was not an actual threat and just vandalism we had a good laugh. I have called schools to inform them of vandalism before, which this basically is. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really slow, but how the hell is that a threat? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. What an anticlimax. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not. I was just calling a school to let them know one of their students vandalized an article. Nothing much to see here. Move along. Bstone (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to call schools to let them know one of their students vandalised an article unless there is a sustained long term pattern and even then I think an email from an admin to the school's IT would be a better response. We're going to drive schools crazy and become a laughing stock if people are going to start responding to stupid vandal edits like this. Sarah 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What Sarah said. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a friggin mistake on my part. Move on Please. CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to your mistake in reporting it to ANI because you misread the edit as a threat, that's fine, in my opinion. I don't have a problem with users reporting vandalism. I was responding to Bstone saying that he was "just" calling a school to tell them one of their students vandalised an article. That's what I have a pretty big concern about, not you reporting the vandalism in the first place. So there was no need for the snarky response. Sarah 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Harvey Korman

Resolved

 – protected by User:Masem

Man just died. People are posting cause of death as heart attack during sex and "complications from stupid head disease". Please lock this biography. Edits are being made in very poor taste.

Probable socking by PetraSchelm

I’d like some extra eyes on something I’ve been looking into. PetraSchelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined us last month, and has gone straight into turning Wikipedia into a battleground in the pedophile article arena. A look through his contributions clearly show he wasn’t a new user [5]. He nominated an article for afd within an hour of joining, and then proceeded to comment at a fair few pedophilia articles with a stance against these articles being allowed. He nominated a couple for deletion in this spree. All this, on his first day here. So who is he a sock of? Well, Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in January and the similarity is unbelievably similar – they both turned this editorial area into a battleground, and have exactly the same stance on all these types of articles. I’ve run a check to compare their edits which can be seen here. So, what does this show? Well, out of Pol64s 133 edits, 64 were on the same pages as Petra. Again, all with the same POV, and battleground mentality. Their average edit time is also interesting; Petra being 13:47, with Pol at 13:17 – this is one of the closest average edit times ever seen with this tool. I don’t think CU will help here – it’s probably stale given Pol64 was blocked indef in later January. I’d appreciate some opinions on this prior to blocking. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• While both are women they appear to be from different countries. Pol was unquestionably British (she admitted it, admitted a UK based ip anon edits were hers, spelt using British English) whereas Petra appears to be American. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, I am in New York, and have already accidentally exposed my IP once while logged out. (Also, a quick glance over Pol's contribs makes the comparison seem very odd--I do a lot of research/add a lot of refs/am a grad student; Pol's edits are not at all... academic.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IP: [6] Jack fixed it for me after I asked him to, as well as burying it in a series of edits to reduce the chance that someone would notice (Thanks, Ryan! :-): [7]. It's also very recognizably me in the context of the discussion on the talkpage, about the Williams/Widom research and a 1996 meta-analysis. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's Pol's IP from January 28: [8] -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

-edit conflict- Hi to ryan etc- just to say that when I first made an account on wiki I joined precisely because I thought an article should be deleted, and I went through the laborious process of formatting an AfD. If someone feels passionately enough to do it properly, even a newbie can do it (eventually.) And it wasn't a sign I'd been on wiki before or anything like that. As to getting angry on paedo articles, a lot of people do.:) Has this editor been spoken to on her talk page and this issues discussed with her personally prior to making a thread on ANI?Sticky Parkin 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to discuss it with her - she's obviously going to deny it, and I'm still convinced that these two users are the same people. There's more to this than just getting on pedophilia related articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to block. No evidence of socking. The evidence is so flimsy that it's not even evidence. A quick scan of the two editors' contribs shows completely different approaches. Pol used very few edit summaries; Petra uses consistent and detailed edit summaries. Pol edited a variety of topics that Petra does not edit. Pol did not add references; Petra has extensively upgraded the articles with scientific sources, and discussed those in detail on talk pages. Pol had less than 150 hundred edits over 4 months; in two months Petra has made almost 1800 edits - that's 12 times the edits in half the number of days making PetraSchelm's editing frequency 24 times that of Pol.
• Also, I strongly disagree that PetraSchelm has made a battleground here and I object to that characterization. If not for the extensive disruption by now-blocked user Jovin Lambton, and a significant number of pro-pedophile sockpuppets and IP/proxy editors, there would have been no battle. The pedophilia-related articles are much more accurate than before she began editing. For years those articles have been under continual attack by pedophile advocates; that is well known to the readers of this noticeboard -- not just Pedophilia but many related and important topics such as Child sexual abuse and others, where pedophile-advocates repeatedly insert fringe theories that seriously undermine the accuracy of the information. If not for the very positive and admirable work by PetraSchelm, that recent progress would not have been made. Far from deserving a complaint, she deserves the hearty thanks of the Wikipedia community.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We can see both of their IPs. One is from the UK, the other from the States. I think this accusation should be withdrawn to be honest. Sticky Parkin 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose block I believe there is insufficient evidence of socking as per the above comments and the toolserver url. Pol64 made 9 edits on Anti-pedophile_activism while Petra only made one. Pol64 made one edit on Child_pornography while Petra made 92. Though there is some overlap on a few pages, it only shows a common interest on these few and as per Jack-A-Roe above, the evidence of socking is not very strong. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a tough one. On the one hand, having borne witness to Pol64's previous vitriol, I find PetraSchelm to be much less of a divisive, agenda-driven polarizing figure. Were I to judge independently, I'd come to the conclusion that Petra is not a sockpuppet of Pol. However, Ryan is an admin I mostly trust. Added to that, based on my experience of him, Ryan's proclivity is to defend anti-pedophile activists/warriors over others; If anything, his bias should be in favor of Petra. Therefore, if Ryan is concerned enough to raise it here, I can't easily dismiss that. Not all socks are detectable by checking IPs and meatpuppetry is similarly immune to technical analysis. So, give Petra the benefit of the doubt, but don't dismiss Ryan's concerns lightly. He wouldn't accuse an editor like Petra lightly. --SSBohio 11:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block.I have witnessed the aforementioned IP evidence that Pol64 and PetraSchelm are from two completely different parts of the world, and I have no reason at all to think they are the same person. Granted, while Petra can be a bit forceful for my liking, she has shown herself to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter. She provided numerous scholarly references AND demonstrated that she's actually read them critically. She's shown admirable courage in confronting biased fringe material that has the potential to be quite harmful (and has earned wikipedia a bad reputation). I'm confident she can learn to compromise and converse less forcibly with time and some guidance.Legitimus (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

comment in response to SSB- we can all sometimes get things wrong, even a respected admin, and have suspicions we feel honour-bound to disclose despite the side of the argument we personally take. It's not a fault in someone particularly to be occassionally incorrect- we all are except maybe the pope when he's speaking ex cathedra. :) But being an admin doesn't confer continuous infallibility. The word of someone's belief shouldn't be enough, or even their interpretation of edit patterns. Checkuser could be done but as Ryan himself says it probably wouldn't identify Petra with Pol due to Pol's block being a while ago. That what we know of their IPs shows they are from different countries (but not the random ones such as Germany, Australia etc TOR sometimes shows) counts against it. So oppose block because it cannot be proven beyond reasonal doubt, quite the opposite, and anyway Petra's edits often seem sourced or reasoned so she's not a hindrance to the project. A lot of people mainly focus on paedo arguments- that's not evidence of socking in itself. It's an emotive subject where what people see as mistakes, can lead them to begin to contribute, I imagine. Sticky Parkin 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Unrelated IPs, different styles, different interests. In fact, Pol64 should be checked against Ztep and Blowhardforever, as all are on BT IPs, and all have very similar styles. Pol64 and socks is far likelier to be SqueakBox, [refactored] (remote admin, anyone?). Just look at the editing times of Pol64 and compare them to that editor. They seem to coincide perfectly. Just as Pol64/SqueakBox finishes, the other starts, often helping them out in some way. Same goes for Ztep. How come this remains uninvestigated if Ztep's account creation was during Squeak's ban, his editing was on similar articles, and after months of inactivity, he suddenly appeared on another SqueakBox dominated article and reverted on his behalf? The editing traits of all three socks and SqueakBox are uncanny.

This is in no way an apology for the innocent PetraSchelm. struck-through comment from now-blocked proxy ip of blocked user 208.88.52.21 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good Lord, no. Oppose block. PetraSchelm turns Wikipedia into a battleground only in the sense that people who revert (say) 9/11 conspiracy theories or holocaust denial do. PetraSchelm does not seem to me to be anyone's sock, but beyond that PetraSchelm is an important an necessary editor for fighting against the Wikipedia being hijacked by pro-pedophile activists for their nefarious ends. Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block and suggest snowballing this thread to keep sock IPs from clouding the issue further. If you'll excuse a moment of soapboxing here, one thing that has troubled me on Wikipedia is that a lot of the anti-pedophile activists we encounter are total jerks who feel that Wikipedia policies are nothing more than an inconvenient stumbling block for their holy war (see also User:XavierVE). I can understand how many of them feel this way, given the nature of their cause, but that doesn't at all lessen the disruption to the project that it creates. PetraSchelm stands in stark contrast to this generalization. I see no evidence of policy violation, no evidence of incivility or edit warring... her edits and comments are well thought out and appropriate. We need editors like this to fight the good fight against crafty pedophile apologists, without turning the whole thing into a messy holy war the way certain other anti-pedophile activists on Wikipedia have done. PetraSchelm deserves to be commended, not blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Question for PetraSchelm

You say that Jack-A-Roe replaced your IP signature with your real signature.

1. How did he know that the IP was yours? 2. How did he do it so quickly. 3. If you told him to do it, why couldn't you have done it? 4. If Jack-A-Roe has no e-mail and no message from you on his talk page, how did you inform him? 5. Are you editing from the same location, or on behalf of the same special interest group? 208.88.52.21 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC) struck-through comment from now-blocked proxy ip of blocked user 208.88.52.21 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may, this is explainable simply by being in the right place at the right time. The IP post was part of a continuous thread that was in full swing, and easily followed a pattern and content that would indicate the IP poster was Petra (which it turns out was true and there was never any denial). Jack-A-Roe was also part of that discussion, or at least was looking at it at the time, and likely just stepped in to cover it out of respect for another user's privacy. It's not unreasonable for a set of users to become familiar with one another over time, particularly in subject-matter niches.Legitimus (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your honor, let the record show the IP above is from a open proxy.Legitimus (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent several "oh no!" emails asking for help when I realized I posted logged out, including one to Alison, asking her to oversight it (because there was zero plausible deniability that the post was me--I posted something about the research, Legitimus asked me a question about it, and I replied logged out). Note to Legitimus--I can tell that 208. is a sock, but how can you tell it is an open proxy? (Just curious).-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that email was received by me and forwarded to the oversight mailing list for comment, as I was unsure as to whether it was within policy. I did not receive a response - Alison ^❤ 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--I think I probably overreacted in the moment/when I emailed you (and I didn't know then that no one could trace my exact location with an IP/someone else explained to me that it wasn't great cause for concern; NYC is a big town, etc....) -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to claim I'm some clever cyber-sleuth and traced the IP to ultimateproxy.org, but...ah...I just typed it into Google :) Also, generally the WHOIS check only returns a single line with very little information if it's a proxy.Legitimus (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

;A better theory

If any socking is to be implied, we should consider:

PetraSchelm : User:XavierVE. Jack-A-Roe : User:AWeidman, User:DPeterson and socks.

After a detailed looking over their contribs, these would seem to be the most possible puppet masters. 208.88.52.21 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC) struck-through comment from now-blocked proxy ip of blocked user 208.88.52.21 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we know Xavier is based in Oregon, a long way away from New York. If we want to investigate socks concerning the Pedophile articles we also need to investigatethose who are, let us sdsay, putting forward the opposing view. There have been less than half a dozen socks from the, let us say SB camp and 50 or 60 from the, let us say Another Sollipsist camp, and a wonky one sided investigation as we are saying is genuinely not serving wikipedia. Peterson is a proven sock of Weidman though it was Peterson whop edited the pedophile articles. I certainly do not believe that Peterson is connected to Jack or Petra based on my experience of these 3 folk, nopr do I believe veryu calm Jack is Xavier, possibly the least calm person to ever edit these articles from an APA perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is especially silly is that an obvious sockpuppet is making these allegations...-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with XavierVE, PetraSchelm is clearly not the same person. PetraSchelm has made at least a half a dozen posts to this noticeboard without accusing anyone of being a pedophile or pedophile apologist. Nope, definitely not XavierVE. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Petra, 208.88.52.21 has now been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy, and his or her disruptive edits in this thread merely demonstrate the enormous problem faced by the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The blocking two hours ago of 208.88.52.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an open proxy does not reflect favorably or unfavorably on any of the other editors who are being discussed here. (None of them are said to have used open proxies). It only suggests that the three comments that 208.88.52.21 left above need not be taken with great seriousness. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. The fact that the blocked user intruded here with a proxy is relevant to the discussion though. This is an excellent illustration of the problems that continually occur on the pedophilia-related articles. Not only proxy IPs, but also endless parades of single-purpose sockpuppets as can be seen at the pedophilia-related blocked users list. So, while we should not let the IP reflect on any other editor's comments here, we should note that the battleground atmosphere on those articles is not generated by good faith Wikipedia editors improving those pages, but by activists from outside Wikipedia, possibly co-ordinated through pedophpile chat boards as has been documented in the past. Whether co-ordinated or not, that there are continuing activist-attacks to undermine those articles is not in doubt and the IP post right here in this discussion shows that clearly.

As an example of their methods, note that the IP did not support the block of PetraSchelm, instead, the IP took the opposite side and posted an "oppose" vote, while expressing various other suspicions. That is how the pedophile activists work on the articles too, under the guise of adding references or seemingly scientific content - but what they add is calculated to undermine reporting of mainstream information and to insert fringe theories and false content, even to direct misquotes of references that can't be found without reading the added references themselves - and usually those references do not include URLs so that requires searching. And not just on Pedophilia, but on a range of important topics like Child sexual abuse and Child pornography. So it's good that the IP posted here, to demonstrate for this noticeboard the challenges that editors of those topics face every day. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that. They are not garden-variety sockpuppets, they are crafty, seasoned, and adept at gaslighting. My favorite was Onevictim, who used the edit summary "delete pedo weasel word." It was obvious to those of us who edit PAW articles immediately that it was a PPA sockpuppet; based on the edit, and because none of us would ever use an edit summary like that. But it took a day or two for the checkuser to come through/the sock to be blocked (along with the other three that appeared at exactly the same time). And you can't really go to the SSP board and use an edit summary like 'delete pedo weasel word" as evidence, it requires a more complicated explanation of the edit the sock made v. the misleading edit summary... a group of people has to watch these articles carefully, because it is not at all obvious to casual observers what the socks do. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to Block Petra Schlem in my experience is always courteous and respectful, and has uncompromising commitment to maintiaining NPOV. Perhaps some mistake refusing to back-down for obstreperousness. If PS is blocked, I believe the quality of articles in which she takes an interest will suffer. Googie man (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mike Babic

Resolved

 – Images deleted, user banned from further uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I must ask that this user be banned from "creating" pictures for wikipedia because of copyright violations and writing of false informations about "his" pictures.

Mike Babic has been earlier suspected by me that he is making copyright violations. "His first pictures" has been deleted because of missing information on its copyright status [9] . Maybe I am mistaking but after this first deletings he has learned how to write false copyright information so new pictures has survived (example:image Cuvari Hristova groba has been deleted on 20 March, but he has recreated picture on 24 and because of new "OK writen copyright information" picture has survived [10]). Now we are having evidence that user:Mike Babic is writing false copyright information because image manastiri is copy of image on site www.kosovo.net (first and second picture). Similar thing he has done with Croatian historical map (Mike Babic, www.croatia-in-english.com). Because of this reasons I must ask that Mike Babic is banned from "creating" new pictures. About need for deleting "his" old pictures I will inform administrators of page copyright violations.--Rjecina (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture Lapada he has taken from National newspaper site (wikipedia, National ) and I can find many other examples but this is enough.--Rjecina (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got problems. I have checked this editor's entire upload history and, in my opinion, everything is deletable as probable or confirmed copyright violation. Nothing has metadata and it is all sized for Web viewing, which suggests that even the obvious scans were things this editor nicked from other people's copyvios elsewhere on the Web. I've categorized these in case anybody wants to discuss them, but short answer is that nothing is clear from license/sourcing concerns, and everything fully confirmable is obvious copyvio. Recommend mass deleting the whole lot. No opinion on whether to impose a restriction (possible language/educational issues I haven't explored). Durova^Charge! 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Heraldic images

1. Image:Ba)serb.gif
2. Image:Grb1.JPG
3. Image:S4 crveni.gif

• Photographs lacking metadata

1. Image:Knin Licence Plates.JPG
2. Image:Krajisnikbrkonja20040bv.jpg
3. Image:Cuvar hristovog groba.jpg - obvious scan with visible halftoning
4. Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg
5. Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg - obvious copyvio composite from different artists
6. Image:N72606994 36624816 7282.jpg - not used in article space
7. Image:N72606994 36624814 6761.jpg
8. Image:Srpska banka.jpg
9. Image:Dubrovnik's Hotel Lapad.jpg
10. Image:Lapada.jpg

• Maps that lack sources and metadata

1. Image:Krajina-map.jpg - obvious scan with visible halftoning
2. Image:KFOR Structur1.2006.PNG
3. Image:Kosovo Demographic Map.PNG
4. Image:Manastiri.jpg
5. Image:Location-Europe-regions.png
6. Image:Europepolitical map.png
7. Image:VojnaKrajina.jpg - obvious scan with paper fold visible
8. Image:Krajina_ethnic_map.jpg - obvious scan with paper folds visible
9. Image:17-18cen.jpg - obvious scan with paper folds visible

• Questionable status, not used in article space

1. Image:Serb population.JPG

Yep, looks like it. I remember dealing with Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg earlier and couldn't at the time find anything that would have contradicted the claim this was an old photograph from the uploader's personal collection; and I seem to remember I once checked on Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg and came up with the result that all four component images were indeed free, but apart from that, the scanned maps are of course obvious copyvios, and if we now also have confirmed cases among the photographs, I'd probably go for a topic ban from further image uploads, like I've done in comparable cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why some of these are still bluelinked? Durova^Charge! 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, please: copyright policy and the law demand attention. Why are some of these images still bluelinked? IMO they can all go. Durova^Charge! 11:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I left the three coats of arms because they could routinely be kept under fair use if declared correctly; I tagged them as lacking fair use rationales so if nobody takes mercy on them they can be gone in a few days. Image:VojnaKrajina.jpg was originally uploaded by somebody else and has a plausible copyright declaration. Image:Location-Europe-regions.png was one I simply missed out on; now that I look at it one might in fact ask if it approaches the level of creativity necessary to be copyrighted. Image:Serb population.JPG is so inexpertly made I find it most likely it's actually the uploader's own work (based on sourced statistics he was quoting in some discussion, if I recall correctly). The three remaining ones are photographs of sufficiently low quality that they may well be snapshots taken by the uploader himself, and unlikely to be from a professional commercial source, so as long as we have no actual proof of them being copyvios, getting rid of them struck me as of not quite so high priority. I certainly have no problem if somebody wants to delete all of these or take them to IfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*I have deleted all blue linked images (see Special:Contributions/LessHeard_vanU) I saw, citing this discussion. I don't do image admin stuff, so if there is any further housekeeping required please go at it. I have left the "questionable status" image, since I haven't the faintest idea how to determine its status. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll wait and delete that remaining one too if it remains unused in a couple of days or unless the uploader makes a convincing case he needs it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically I marked that as questionable because he might have created that legitimately, although it appears unlikely that he did. Giving extreme benefit of the doubt there because everything else has been copyvio. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack on User Wildhartlivie from User Nyannrunning

It looks like Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) is personally attacking Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs).

Here: Talk:Jim_Morrison#New_chapter_about_Morrison.27s_relationship_with_Thomas_Reese

And is engaging in sock puppetry:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie&diff=prev&oldid=215930491#You_are_referenced_on_discussion_page_for_Jim_Morrison

Please advise. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence: User_talk:Faithlessthewonderboy#Jim_Morrison and User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox

Possible sockpuppet names: Dooyar (talk · contribs) and Debbiesvoucher (talk · contribs)

Additional evidence

The obscure but nearly identical information added to the Kim Cattrall page by User:Debbiesvoucher here and by User:Nyannrunning here.

Definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

Results from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning that Possible that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related. And "Template:Usercompare. I'm pretty sure that Dooyar is a sock." from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning.

I just want this stopped. Please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CorticoSpinal

Background of User:CorticoSpinal:

• 2008-03-09: blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing. (Disclaimer: this contained personal attacks on me.)
• 2008-03-20: warned about 3RR
• 2008-03-20: block reinstated indefinitely for repeated abuse of editing privileges
• 2008-04-09: unblocked on condition of behaving civilly and constructively
• 2008-04-09: renamed user from EBDCM to CorticoSpinal
• 2008-04-17: warned against personal attacks
• 2008-05-08: blocked for a short time for violating WP:3RR
• 2008-05-18: warned about tone and posture of comments
• 2008-05-19: warned again about combativeness
• 2008-05-27: warned for defamatory content
• 2008-05-28: Wikiquette alert for personal attack, resolved by another warning

User:CorticoSpinal continues to engage in personal attacks. Here are three examples from the past two days:

• 2008-05-29: "Filll, Mr. 'AGF' and 'I'm evidence-based' (yet refuses to consider the evidence presented that is contrary to his belief system --true denier?--) comes in and completely proves my point to a 'T' with nonsense arguments and absolutely no clue of what the evidence says."[11] (This refers to user Filll; the references to WP:AGF and to Evidence-based are ironic; a "true denier" is the opposite of a true believer.)
• 2008-05-29: "You seem to dispute all the details Eubulides. DigitalC has also said you have been pedantic. I would use tendentious, but that's just me."[12]
• 2008-05-30: "I really don't think you understand NPOV, QG.... you have not learned any lessons whatsoever with your time editing at Chiropractic"[13] ("QG" refers to user QuackGuru.)

This behavior causes considerable unnecessary work for other editors and hinders attempts to gain consensus on Chiropractic, a controversial article. (Disclaimer: I am one of the editors being attacked. Also, these attacks are in the context of a content dispute: User:CorticoSpinal strongly supports chiropractic and the editors being attacked do not.)

Eubulides (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• 2008-03-09 Disclaimer: This was in complete frustration to the ongoing civil POV push of Ernst and failing to listen to concerns violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repeatedly.
• 2008-03-20 These were never specified despite repeated attempts to ask what I had done wrong. It's all on Archive 2 if anybody wants to look)
• 2008-05-08 I actually didn't violate 3RR here, I accidentally broke my voluntary limit of 1RR and went to 2RR. CorticoSpinal (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• 2008-05-19 Rebuttal and context [14]
• 2008-05-27 Character assasination attempt by ScienceApologist which he removed voluntarily when scrutinzed.
• 2008-05-28 More attempts by ScienceApologist to get me blocked/banned because of my arguments which threaten the existing de-facto status quo (chiro is fringe)

Now, suddenly as there is a RfC for Chiropractic (is it fringe) Eubulides decides to take action immediately after I ask for a similar investigation into the work of QuackGuru. Coincidental? Likely not. Let us deal with the RfC Chiropractic first. If it declared fringe, I will voluntarily cease to edit Chiropractic, perhaps permanently. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:23, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring a little balance here, I do think it is important to notice that there seems to be a POV dispute occurring on the Chiropractic page which has attracted several editors that don't usually edit there. Their target appears to be CorticoSpinal, for whatever reason. Personally, I think CorticoSpinal may have a legitimate gripe, as does Eubilides. The rest don't really seem to have a reason other than to suppress his POV. It is important that you know that I am a chiropractor. -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of disagreement on Chiropractic, but CorticoSpinal seems to react extremely negatively to anybody who disagrees with them. He seems to see a broad group of editors disagreeing with him as an organized war "SA and then anti-chiro skeptic alliance (ACSA) can randomly drop by here and bomb the article and try to railroad changes..."[15] and consistently fails to assume good faith "My opinion of this is that it's another classic example of stonewalling by dogmatic skeptics"[16]. This is really quite extreme poisoning of the well, which makes achieving consensus on this article currently impossible. Jefffire (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This attempt by Eubulides to discredit me is part of a long string of overt and covert attacks on my character and contributions. I had brought Eubulides' underhanded tactics ANI previously In fact, if anything it is Eubulides' actions at chiropractic that truly deserve special attention. These include a 4 month civil-POV push of Edzard Ernst studies under the guise the research represents the majority "mainstream" health care as a deliberate attempt to subvert the majority of research which demonstrates chiropractic care and SMT is just as if not more effective than conventional medical care for back and neck pain while being MORE safe and MORE cost-effective. All the while I have been the recipient of continuous, non-stop attacks from anti-chiropractic editors. I asked admin MastCell here to help rectify the situation and nothing was done (as usual). unfortunately the attacks did not cease (clarified position, it was not to rebuke admin MastCell but rather to demonstrate I took active steps of trying to amicably resolve the non-stop character assasination by anti-chiropractic editors).

Eubulides has regularly misrepresented my views. I have counted no less than 21 separate incidents where Eubulides has twisted by comments, misrepresented my views in order to subvert my argument(s). Diffs can be provided upon request. Eubulides has been accused of cherry picking the evidene by several editors, a mining of papers of sorts, to distort the majority viewpoint of the scientific literature. Eubulides has been warned about WP:IDHT no less than a dozen times, with no change in behaviour. Eubulides has been asked to respect consensus regarding the validity of 'effectiveness' of the chiropractic 'profession' and failed to do so. Eubulides was warned for edit warring (in a covert manner too) at Chiropractic a few weeks ago. Eubulides has continuously used a string of logical fallacies in his argumentation, which when pointed out to him, went nowhere (besides disagreeing). Eubulides has acted as a judge, jury and executioner on all the research unilaterally deciding what research goes in, where and what tone and weight it is to carry. He meets all the criteria of a civil POV pusher. This is about science and research. I am a chiropractor. Eubulides is a medical doctor. These facts should be known as well. Diffs can be provided for all the aforementioned. I don't mind having 2 concurrent ANIs, one for myself and one for Eubulides. (Note: I have brought my concerns regarding Eubulides' civil POV push to an uninvolved admin who was going to look into the case). Looks like that time has come. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru:

The indef-block was reinstated.

The unblock request was denied twice. See here and here.

To make a long story short, AGK unblocked CorticSpinal after it was declined by two admins. With the unblock, AGK explained it was conditionally. See below for more details.

To that end, I am conditionally unblocking you, with the following understanding:

1. You will contribute civilly, and in a manner that is both constructive, and free of personal attacks and hostilities.
2. You will bear in mind, that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and that things work a hundred times better if you make an effort to both empathise, and get along, with your fellow editors.
3. You will make article-writing your primary focus, and refrain from getting involved in heated talk-page discussions in the immediate aftermath of your unblock. I attach this condition to facilitate an "easy re-integration" on your part, with the community, and I particularly trust that you will follow this.

I am more than open to reinstating a full block as before, if you fail to contribute in a positive manner. This is a final chance; don't blow it, please.

The conditional unblock was handled by AGK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EBDCM In the past, there was a possible ip sock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.229.74.64 Recently, there was another ip with similar editing patterns as CorticoSpinal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive72#User:CorticoSpinal_reported_by_User:Arthur_Rubin_.28Result:_1_week.29 There were at least four reverts.

CorticoSpinal wrote in part: Please do not attempt to confuse readers seeing you are confused. CorticoSpinal claims there are anti-chiropractor[17] editors.

There is evidence that User:CorticoSpinal has violated the terms of his conditional unblock. Therefore, a reinstatement of his indef-block is warranted. QuackGuru 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the 3RR reporter in question, I found 4 reverts and the closing admin found 6. CS's claim that there were only 2 (still violating the 1RR parole) is disingenuous. I didn't look into the conditions of the conditional unblock. (The question of whether his reverts were to a "consensus" version are irrelevant to 3RR and his previous and subsequent edit warring.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As for User:QuackGuru, I find his editing style and comments such that the fact that his article edits are usually well-thought-out is well-concealed. It might be better for him not to edit in such a manner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment by CorticoSpinal was in poor taste. CorticoSpinal has exhausted the patience of the community. QuackGuru 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am one that believes in seeing things in context, so you need to see the whole picture as POV warriors do there best to gang up on CorticoSpinal. Personally, I think he did a pretty good job fending them off. And QuackGuru has had a few warnings himself, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but this isn't about you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that 3RR incident was dealt with, is stale, and I think this ANI should be focusing on other behaviour, such as civility. DigitalC (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate. I hope that we can all work this out in some consensual collegial manner. So it is forbidden to disagree? What policy does that violate? I am disgusted, frankly. I mean no disrespect to any who believe that Chiropractic is a mainstream medical practice. I certainly agree that some peer-reviewed publications in the last few years have shown that for some small handful of ailments chiropractic is as beneficial as any other treatment. However, I am not convinced that the current article strikes the appropriate balance and tone. I apologize to anyone who disagrees with me and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone with this suggestion. There is so much rancor involved with warring parties that it makes me really wonder about the Wikipedia model...--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I hate to admit it, but I enjoy the discussion. Maybe the chiropractic page is not the place to do it though. Somewhere where none of us have to worry about being blocked or banned. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You might enjoy the discussion, but frankly I think on these controversial articles the "discussion" just gets too dangerous. This is just a website after all; is it worth the threats and worse? Mark my words; sooner or later one of us is going to be killed for disagreeing with one of these zealots. This is very unhealthy and I think suggests a bad failure of the Wikipedia model.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point; not everyone has the right temperment for this type of discussion, and there are certainly some unstable personalities on wikipedia. But I am confused as to why you threw that fuel on the fire if you were concerned about that. Surely you aren't worried about CS killing anyone? -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I do not claim CS or Eubilides or anyone in particular is going to kill someone. However, I have watched these controversial articles in alternative medicine and in racial topics and conspiracy theories and religious areas and political areas and so on for well over a year. I have seen how heated these things become on Wikipedia and on the websites that monitor Wikipedia, like Wikipedia review. I have heard horrendous accounts of frequent death threats and stalking and harassment over Wikipedia. As I realize how nasty and ugly things have become over what is just a website, I am increasingly dismayed. I have heard other people make this prediction that eventually tragedy will strike, and after having watched things proceeding in a very negative way, I have to say I agree. This is all much much too serious and much much too unpleasant over what is just a hobby, a volunteer persuit. Are these stupid conflicts worth it? I mean, really. This is nuts.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are a good hearted editor. I am not sure it is worth it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard CS's comment "Eubulides has been asked to respect consensus regarding the validity of 'effectiveness' of the chiropractic 'profession' and failed to do so.", I see only a partial consensus, and Eubulides has respected (most of) that. Of course, CS considers me an anti-chiropractic editor, so, of course, he'll disregard that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Eubilides does not own that article any more than CorticoSpinal does, so we have to make sure all POVs are represented fairly and accurately. I think that is the whole issue abotu whether Chiropractic is WP:FRINGE because that would determine whether CS could use his peer reviewed information as well as Eubilides uses his. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To address AR, I have given you props for warning Eubulides that he may have accidentally gone over 3RR. I tend to dismiss extremist positions/editors, and I would not classify you as such. We just disagree on Chiropractic, just like we might disagree on politics. Nothing personal. To Dematt, " I think that is the whole issue abotu whether Chiropractic is WP:FRINGE because that would determine whether CS could use his peer reviewed information as well as Eubilides uses his." I could not have said it any better than that myself. I will declare here publically, if the evidence suggests chiropractic medicineis moreso fringe health care, than mainstream health care, I will voluntarily retire indefinitely from Wikipedia. There would be no point to continue editing when the opinion of dogmatic anti-chiropractic editors stating it is fringe nullifies and outweighs the evidencewhich suggests its moreso part of mainstream health care if not completely within it. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dematt, where in heaven's name do you get the idea that all POV's have to be "represented fairly and accurately?????" Actually, WP:NPOV does not say that. We do not give undue weight to fringe theories. The vast preponderance of reliable sources say that Chiropractic is not very useful medically, and there is nothing in NPOV that states the article needs to give weight to the fringe theories.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the problem. There is a giant civil POV push to discount the evidence that IS out there, and just state that "the vast preponderance of RS say that Chiropractic is not very useful". That is NOT what the evidence states! DigitalC (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, If Chiropractic were just Palmer's 19th century subluxation theory that invokes Innate Intelligence, I would agree that would be fringe, because it is even in chiropractic circles (as I am sure that is what the proponderance of the literature agrees to). On those articles we need to use the principles in WP:FRINGE. But chiropractic(the profession) is more than that. We are talking about chiropractic physicians using spinal manipulation, massage, ice, heat, exercises, and whatever else they use short of medications and surgery for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. IOWs chiropractic care. These things are things that are used in physical therapists offices everyday now. There is mainstream research that compares and contrasts all different types of physical therapy (that all musculoskeletal therapists use - including chiropractors). So why should they be treated any less mainstream than they would be on the Physical therapy article? Some researchers disagree what works best. All I am saying is that NPOV requires that we present those two verifiable and reliable sources neutrally and without bias, letting the reader make up their own mind. Correct me if NPOV would not ask that I do that.

Now, to take this further into what CS is saying is... if one of those research opinions presented by one researcher is in opposition to a more recent task force of 16 researchers of different disciplines sponsored by the World Health Organization, does this mean that the first research can be left out of the article. He believes it's a question of weight and he is asking the community to give it some serious thought. I'm thinking that he has a good point and it appears that no-one is listening to him. No wonder he gets upset. It has nothing to do with some preconceived beliefs that chiropractic is WP:FRINGE. That seems to be all that anybody wants to say? -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a fringe profession and a fringe element within a profession. That's the point here. Also, the evidence suggests contrary, chiropractic care, manual therapy and SMT is effective, safe and cost-effective, relative to standard medical care for back and neck pain and other similar musculoskeletal disorders. That's the claim being made. There's evidence to support this claim. The only thing preventing from it being stated this way (or close to it) is the disputed research of Edzard Ernst. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Fill wrote " I mean no disrespect to any who believe that Chiropractic is a mainstream medical practice. That claim has not been made. The claim is that chiropractic is moreso part of mainstream health care". The difference is important to note. One should also note that the current context is one of a dichotomy, i.e. there's only 2 choices, mainstream or fringe. In reality, the third option is presenting itself Integrative medicine where DCs are the backbone (no pun intended) of such a model that fuses the best practices of "alternative medicine" and "conventional/mainstream medicine". I work in such a setting. That's why, in part, I'm here. To present chiropractic care circa 2008 and not some outdated model. Sure, chiropractic has warts and these need to be presented (remember I'm the one who said chiropractic needs a criticisms section) but the fringe aspects of chiropractic care (ie manipulation for non-musculoskeletal disorders) is being used by less than 10% of chiropractors. It's a weight issue. The skeptics continuously straw man the minority view within chiropractic and present it as the majority view which then, in turn is used to call the whole profession fringe with the subsequent stigma and editing rules WP:PARITY that comes along with such a designation. Bottom line: chiropractic medicine has the evidence(research) to stand on its own 2 feet, chiropractic medicine for all intents and purposes has been incorporated into mainstream health care and chiropractic should not be treated like Flat Earth, Creationism and Homeopathy nor should nonsensical comparisons to alien abductions be made. Chiropractors should be not portraued as anti-science (as assumed by default by the fringe branding by anti-chiropractic editors) and shouldn't be treated like 2nd classes citizens from a 3rd world country here at Wikipedia. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

CS, I appreciate what you are saying, and I want you to know that each of these editors that are here have made edits that would be considered pro-chiropractic edits when they understood the issue and the sources. Arthur has defended the Chiropractic article for years from wackos and kooks. You and FIlll would be on the same side on the Homeopathy page. I would venture that each of them would support your edits, because they, too, think that voodoo does not belong on wikipedia. Chiropractic needs to be presented to show all POVs, including the voodoo fringe (which you are not a part of), so that readers will not be sucked in by those type practitioners (and, yes, MDs use some voodoo, too - so that is not the point). The question is the weight. Eubilides, I submit to you that CS is right, you are not allowing the 'reform' view to be fully explained before blending it with the straight view. They will need to remain separate. I have given you guys time to see if you could blend the two, but it isn't working. That's my 2 cents, though I am not sure this is the place to say it. Basically, I am here to say there are more issues on this article than the diffs that show CS's "high points". -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are serious disputes about content. But this ANI is not about content. It is about behavior. Although the behavior of attacking other editors is wrong, CorticoSpinal continues to engage in it despite repeated warnings. Here are two other recent quotes illustrating the behavior in question:

• 2008-05-28: "You should not play so coy. You've been doing this for 4 months now, Eubulides. Except, over time your civil POV push for Ernst representing the mainstream opinion has been exposed as a farce.… That is so underhanded…. Shame on you."[18]
• 2008-05-30: "The opinion of one man can subvert and circumvent international scientific consensus at Chiropractic. This is the push Eubulides has been making over the last 4 months, the push I've been resisting for 4 months and we're now seeing it crystallize. In Canada, we'd say this issue is the "TSN Turning Point". Eubulides assessment of the TaskForce has been demonstrated to be false. He has tendentiously pursued this point for months."[19]

This kind of personal attack needs to stop. But it isn't stopping, despite a block in the past, despite repeated warnings, and despite this ANI report. That last comment was made about 3 hours ago. Eubulides (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave up editing the article because of the personal attacks from CS, who has been repeatedly blocked. He is pushing a POV that is inappropriate and unsupported. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have been editing the article over the last few months, and I have not seen any meaningful participation from Orangemarlin. His edits that I have noticed were drive-by reverts (often to a version of someone on 1RR parole - suggesting possible meatpuppetry), and he has stated that he refuses to participate on the talk page, or look at the talk page to see what the consensus is. I have also witnessed several personal attacks towards CS from OM. While this ANI is not about OM, I think it is important to take this into context. DigitalC (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Are you for real, OM? Luckiliy Wikipedia keeps a track of these types of things. [20] Look at the diffs provided for the reality of the situation. I am pushing for a scientific inquiry into whether or not chiropractic is fringe. I have provided evidence it is moreso mainstream than fringe. I have been attacked, harrassed, baited, bitten, stalked by anti-chiropractic editors. So, please forgive my occasional bursts of curtness, but you guys always have me on edge. Eubulides, I am making a claim that there has been a civil POV push of Ernsts' flawed research on SMT and chiropractic care, primarily by you. It's not an attack. It's a statement that I have backed up and that is currently being investigated. If I am proven incorrect, I'll happily retract the claim. Until then, it's just that: a claim. If the involved editors would care to look at these threads [21] and [22] you will see that there is strong evidence which supports my claims (and none that refutes it). This is about evidence and content. That drives the behaviour. If I've gone batshiat crazy it's because there's been a civil POV push happening at chiropractic for 4 months and it's been treated like a fringe subject (Flat Earth, alien abductions) rather than a part of mainstream health care. Chiropractic shares far more in common with a specialization like Dentistry than it does with Homeopathy. We should treat it accordinly. It's about professional respect. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: In short this is about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The anti-chiro brigade doesn't like the fact that I am debunking long held stereotypes and myths via scientific literature. Yet I am called anti-scientific continuously by the same editor time and time again. This happened at Raul654's very own talk page in front of numerous admins who just sat there while OM was feeding me personal attacks left and right. Diffs can be provided upon request. Would someone please look impartially at the content and context? Otherwise we're left with a cherry picking of diffs from the editor who opened the case with no proper context. Another way to look at it is this: find me 1 diff of alledged incivility to any editor outside the chiroskeptic brigade (Mccready, QuackGuru, Eubulides, Orangemarlin, Jefffire, ScienceApologist and (limited AR and Filll). These guys come into my specialization Chiropractic and mess around, call me names, prevent me from editing, censor my talk page comments, move my comments around so they lose all context and meaning, harass, bait, bite, attack, accuse me of being "anti-science" a "POV warrior" who "cannot collaborate". I've been blocked for far less than other editors, probably because of sympathetic admins to the chiroskeptics who think I'm a fringe practitioner promoting a fringe view. Incorrect. I play fine with others. Look who's showing up to bury me here! I'm like Nostradamus, I can predict who will come for the execution. Luckily I have documented this and let select impartial admins be aware of my concerns. And they're coming to fruition. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to the addendum: I have been on edge quite a bit lately, but that's primarily because things have realllllly heated up and crystalized at chiropractic. I'm always on the defensive against one of aforementioned editors. Though I really try to be civil and patient and understanding, sometimes I let a barb slip. And I'm truly sorry for that. I have shown tremendous restraint over all, but do acknowledge that occasionally I let one fly. I have requested a few times now to be mentored, yet I don't know how and where to initiate that process. I truly feel as though I am a net-contributor to the project (create far more than I delete; whose expertise in physical medicine should be an asset to the project and who always brings indexed, peer-reviewed research. I don't cite quackwatch and layman pages. I bring quality research from PubMed (at a minimum!). I feel I bring in a unique blend of both mainstream health care and integrative health care (the very best practices and evidence of "CAM"). This is valuable here. Wikipedia can be on the leading edge and support and develop me/smooth the edges as a scientific chiropractor, or wikipedia can support the measures of the anti-chiropractic bandwagon to act without impugnity, attack me in every single which way until I crack, retaliate and then lobby to ANI to block me. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This editor adds almost nothing to the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic, acts primarily as a single purpose account and is so confrontational that discussion normally completely degenerates whenever he begins to add material. I suggest banning him for a time from Chiropractic and its associated talk pages as well as all related pages. Give him a chance to edit other articles on Wikipedia to see if he can be of use elsewhere. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that this editor is simply disruptive enough to be shown the door. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical statement. You've contributed nothing to Chiropractic, except drive-by reversions, statements of false consensus and attempts to vote stack a dubious RfC with opinions rather than evidence. I have invested hours of research and editing bringing up the scientific content miles above where it was. Just because you view chiropractic as fringe, and I'm challenging that opinion with reliable, undisputed evidence, your trying to have me muzzled and spayed. Hopefully the admins can see through this hollow request. On the other hand, one could easily suggest that your recent behaviour at Chirorpractic could very be your 9th life (look at your block list, and you've probably set a record for ANI appearances. If it weren't for some sympathetic admins who share your POV on FRINGE you'd be a goner, no doubt) and you've done nothing but wiki-stalk me the last 7 days. Quite simply SA: Do you have any evidence that disputes the evidence I presented that chiropractic is mainstream health care and not fringe? Because you're treating me like a fringe POV pusher rather than a health professional. That's hardly good faith and I could easily provide diffs that show how you've been warned about harassing me. It's time to face the facts that your opinion on chiropractic (fringe) is not supported by undisputed scientific evidence as well as governmental and health agencies worldwide and reputable lay sources such as the New York Times. You are merely stating your opinion that chiropractic, the profession, is fringe. And you call yourself ScienceApologist? Ironic, you really should apologize for misrepresenting yourself, for it is you, SA that does not follow the science. Over and out. CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this last statement by CS just about proves my case. Is it really worth it to have a user who engages in snarkiness to the point of personal invectives in a section of AN/I devoted to dealing with that very issue? All I know is that if I was behaving the way CS is behaving, I'd have been slapped with a week-long block by now. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the evidence after 2008-05-18 - only 3 out of the 8 bits of evidence have any worth including the final relating to "QG" - bad! 2 things: 1/ take the content issues through Article RFC or mediation, and 2/ I strongly recommend an RFC on user conduct to be filed, particularly if there is any new evidence concerning his conduct. Other than that, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant use of admin tools here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the article has had a number of content RfC recently. As for new evidence about his conduct, how about the "chiroskeptic brigade" comments he makes above? Jefffire (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable that he's upset, and in the grand scheme of things, though it might not be considered acceptable to some, it still wouldn't warrant use of admin tools (which is essentially what this noticeboard is for). Instead, you or those categorised in that way could politely request him here to retract that title if it's offensive - it's a step in the right direction to wanting to truely resolve a dispute.

I recommend an RFC on user conduct be filed if it's really out of hand, or even with whatever evidence from the past and recent past you have - but as you may know, the conduct of all those involved may be looked at in the process - particularly if he adduces evidence in the form of diffs. In any case, I'd be happy to look through it. If there are problems with conduct, third party input will be given stating what the problems are and suggestions on how to fix the problem (and it mostly ends there). If it doesn't, then we can go from there. It may seem long or perhaps annoying, but the results often speak for themselves, sooner or later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this section is about a continual series of violations of his unblocking, regardless of any possible worthiness as an editor. Other user's conduct is not the issue. We are way past the point of any user RfC, since we are dealing with a violation of conditions for unblocking an indef block, after many previous warnings and blocks. The personal attacks not only have to stop, they have existed continually and it's been getting worse. The fact that they have existed is proof of a serious violation of the agreements for unblocking, and thus the indef ban needs to be reinstated. It's too bad, but when an editor with such good potential can't stop the attacks, it's time to part (yet again). -- Fyslee / talk 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An example of what we have to put up with from this user:

• "What this discussion proves that zombie editors and anti-chiropractic skeptics are obstructing anybody who disagrees with them. The zombie editing practices of the anti-chiropractic axis of Jefffire-OrangeMarlin-ScienceApologist with sleeper cell of Filll and Arthur Rubin will be exposed. You don't have all the wikipedia admins in your back pocket. What a fucking joke this place is." CorticoSpinal [23]

-- Fyslee / talk 16:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have given no valid reasons or insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is impossible or too difficult to attempt to resolve this through other steps of dispute resolution such as RFC on user conduct. This is the only way that there is an active demonstration of actually wanting and trying to resolve the dispute, rather than removing someone you disagree with (in content) for other reasons. So, don't bypass earlier steps of dispute resolution because of impatience - it will not result in a ban being reinstated/enforced from users outside of the dispute (or the community). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The indef-block was reinstated and the unblock request was denied twice. See here and here. AGK unblocked CorticSpinal after it was declined by two admins. Was this a valid unblock after it was declined twice?[24][25] Was there any consensus to unblock after the repeated declines.[26][27] QuackGuru 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[EC] Reply to Ncmvocalist. We have already been there. It didn't work and he was blocked and finally indef blocked. He was unblocked based on conditions, and has been on probation ever since. He has violated those conditions. In such a situation, we don't start all over again. That wouldn't make sense and would violate all normal procedures here and in the justice system (if that were the case). It's a case of simple logic....if you (generic) break a promise and violate your probation, your indef block gets reinstated. A refusal to reinstate the block under such conditions would place the involved admin at jeopardy for ignoring community wishes and consensus. There is no alternative but to reinstate the indef block. -- Fyslee / talk 17:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no community wish, other than the skeptics to block and we're seeing why that might be. Sour grapes, Fyslee. You defend QuackGuru yet try to bury me? That's rather odd since you pushed for him to get investigated one week ago for truly disruptive conduct. We get it, you don't like me. Fine. As the author of the chiropractic is illegitimate article, it's painfully obvious that it would be in your own personal POV interest to have me gone. But, that's neither here nor there.

What we're talking about is editing practices and how it drives behaviour. Considering I've been branded as fringe as opposed to a health professional (because the skeptics personally view chiropractic as fringe despite the evidence presented that it is moreso mainstream and thusly should be edited under that banner) and have been subjected to the kind of scrutiny and attacks that likely few editors would ever have to endure. I'm simply trying to keep the chiropractic article stabilized, but other editors who have commented here to bury me have no intent to actually contribute, but rather to supress any real progress made and to disrupt and destabilize the article.

The edit histories of these 3 users are as follows

> > OrangeMarlin (OM)

• 27/5 revert
• 11/5 revert
• 17/4 revert
• 17/4 revert
• 08/4 revert
• 07/4 revert
• 07/4 revert
• 21/3 revert
• 20/3 revert
• 20/3 revert
• 20/3 revert

> > ScienceApologist (SA)

• 27/5 removes sourced statement on 4th RR
• 27/5 revert
• 27/5 revert
• 27/5 revert
• 25/5 revert
• 24/5 restores source seemingly removed by his own previous revert
• 24/5 revert
• 23/5 restores source seemingly removed by his own previous revert
• 23/5 reverts 8 days of editing by CS and Levine
• 15/5 revert
• 14/5 revert

> > Filll

• 27/5 revert
• 15/5 revert
• 14/5 revert

>

This is not just the recent stuff, this isn't their total edits at Chiropratic It is hard to resist the conclusion that these editors are not actively involved in editing the article... at all. It appears that they are gang edit warring to avoid 3rr and trying to stir the pot. Their discussions on the talk page are are more along the lines of stonewalling and disruption since, as can be seen from their edit histories, they have nothing to add to the article in any way. You can see why, at times, I get exasperated with an ongoing civil POV push or Ernst and chiropractic is fringe. Find me one editor or diff outside the usual suspects here that I have been less than friendly terms. Good luck. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Let me make some things very clear.

1. Wikipedia is not a justice system.
2. A community ban only exists where there is consensus for it, i.e. no admin is willing to unblock the editor in question. The community as a whole (outside of those involved) see it is the only way to avoid damage to the encyclopedia.
3. The conditions of the unblock do not constitute indefinite probation.
4. There currently is no consensus for another ban or block, and will continue not to be, in the absence other forms of dispute resolution being attempted, unless the user engages in severe or much more repeated violations of policy. In any case...
5. filing an RFC is not starting again - it is an active attempt to resolve the dispute by way of third party input. It also ensures that you aren't filing this with an intent to remove a contributor while evading a sanction/block for your own misconduct, if you have engaged in misconduct.
6. Failing to resolve the dispute in this way (in conjunction with mediation/article RFC), is when you come back and ask for conduct to be looked at
7. Failing that, or after the RFC, you can try arbitration.

In no case will all parties conduct not be looked into. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal blocked

Per my detailed rationale at User talk:CorticoSpinal#Blocked, and pending my current concerns that allowing CorticoSpinal to continue editing is actively hampering the smooth operation of Wikipedia and its articles, I have blocked CorticoSpinal indefinitely.

This action is further to a follow-up review of my unblock earlier in the year, at which time I made it clear that if CorticoSpinal resumed the behaviour he had been originally indefinitely blocked for, he would be re-blocked. Clearly, he has found himself unable to adhere to the standards of behaviour expected; if he becomes willing to reform, and is able to demonstrate such a willingness to one or more administrators, then I am willing to lift my block.

This action is separate to the discussion here; notification is only cross-posted here, for the purposes of well-informed ban discussion. At the moment, I do not consider my action to be representative of a consensus to ban, but only a run-of-the-mill, counter-disruption measure.

Anthøny 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence that CorticoSpinal outed an editor today. CorticoSpinal has previously outed the same Wikipedian before. I provided Anthøny with the evidence. Outing an editor is indef-blockworthy. QuackGuru 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying your comment in such a way that you are still arguing for action to be taken. It has been... Anthøny 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter phelps

I am concerned about the username of User:Peter phelps. This user has made some rather controversial edits to Mike Kelly (politician) ([28]), and also made some heated comments on my talk page when I reverted those edits ([29]), although they were later retracted ([30]).

The user in question has more or less claimed to be Dr Peter Phelps at this discussion at WP:AWNB. For more background on this person, read Gary Nairn, particularly the final paragraph. I am not convinced that this person is who they say they are, however. I question whether a political staffer for a federal government minister would have the questionable judgement to get involved in an internet flamewar over edits as unsubtle as these. I think it may be an attempt to make Phelps (and perhaps by extension Nairn or the Liberal Party of Australia) look foolish through impersonation (something that I think User:Rebecca was getting at in the AWNB discussion).

Does it seem reasonable to 'officially' ask this user to provide some proof of their identity (perhaps through OTRS) before engaging in further discussion, and taking some corrective action if this is not forthcoming? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names has some guidance on this. I suggest politely raising the issue on his talk page asking him to email info-en@wikimedia.org and show us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've username blocked this user pending confirmation of his identity as he is representing himself as Gary Nairn's former Chief of Staff and targeting the bio of the man who defeated Nairn at the Federal election. We've had other Australian political figures impersonated before and the Australian political bios have been the target of a great amount of trolling, particularly those with any Jewish ties, as this article does have. There is a paragraph in the Nairn article about Phelps so I think application of the username policy is entirely reasonable. Sarah 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Usury edits

Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been continually adding what I consider inflammatory opinion to the Usury article. After a final vandalism warning and the 3RR warning the reverts continued. I reported this on the vandalism page where Wknight94 has suggested it's more suitably placed here. I've attempt to reason with the user on their talk page to no avail; the user has descended into accusations of stalking, harassments and threats. It's all become rather strange; and I don't know how to proceed, or indeed if I've ended up violating 3RR myself. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the user's edits are good (removing bloat or rewriting lumpen prose), but the bit of opinion on the Bible's being an "arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text" is unnecessary and inflammatory. I don't think it should be described as vandalism. I've protected the Usury article for two days to prevent further edit-warring; I would prefer not to block a good-faith new editor. I think he needs to be gently pointed in the direction of our policy on original research and opinionating. I am going now so would appreciate it if someone else could craft something to this end for the user. If noone has by Sunday I'll add something then. If this doesn't elicit a change in editing then yes, perhaps blocking might need to be considered. Neıl 龱 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I dropped him a note. We'll see where it goes. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Into more insults it seems. --Blowdart | ^talk 04:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jaysweet. He's on a final warning. Neıl 龱 12:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious legal threat following baseball card link removal

Resolved

 – Users blocked for 24 hours.

--Selket ^Talk 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from the owner of a site that I warned about spamming yesterday. He demanded I provide him with my contact information for a review of my "censorship" of his links. He said any attempt to censor his links would be met with legal action and he copied a prominent intellectual property lawyer on his e-mail. As opposed to the standard legalistic, blustery threats we receive everyday, I consider this a credible threat to pursue legal action, even if the actual legal complaint itself lacks credibility and legal merit.

I acted in response to a complaint made by:

• 71.56.118.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

71.56.118.64 made his complaint at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Link spam violations

I investigated both the complaining IP and the histories of the two articles he cited. The complainant appeared to have a "clean history". The two articles showed a clear pattern of repeated additions of the same links by 4 IPs which were repeatedly reversed. There was also evidence of heavy, unrelated spamming of these articles prior to this.

Here are the two articles involved:

• T206 edit history
• Goudey edit history

Here are the four IPs; 3 traceroute to the New York City area; the 4th traceroute I can't decypher:

• 69.201.150.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 216.73.161.196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 208.106.31.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.65.142.43 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • Note the site-owner's response made after the second warning.

I gave all four IPs standard spam warnings.^{[31][32][33][34]} I used level 2 warnings instead of level 1 warnings since the links had been repeatedly added notwithstanding messages in the removing editor's edit summaries; the four IPs had also not engaged with anyone through the use of talk pages. I also removed two other, unrelated links from one of the articles. I wrote up my spam investigation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Link spam violations.^[35]

66.65.142.43 reversed my deletions, so I gave a second standard warning (level 3)^[36] and deleted his links using TWINKLE.^[37][38]

Subsequently, the IP responded at User talk:66.65.142.43 with a strong complaint, signing it "ds".^[39][40] He also sent me the e-mail I referred to above.

ds claims: "All of this is legitimate reference information, and as such is protected speech in the U.S." He states that I have eliminated all references for these articles, however I note each has a reference section. ds also has alleged off-line that I am acting as an agent for the owner of cardpricer.com. I was unfamiliar with cardpricer.com and took the actions I did based on the merits of the spam complaint, not some connection to cardpricer.com.

Subsequent to this complaint, I did some checking; it appears cardpricer.com may be associated with banned user Tecmobowl:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
  • 71.56.118.64, the IP making the spam complaint, is in the same 71.56.xxx.xxx range as some of the IPs cited in the sock puppet report.

Nevertheless, even if 71.56.118.64 owns cardpricer.com, I'm not sure what this has to do with the conflict of interest "ds" has in adding these links or his refusal to back off after being asked to stop with the first warning.

I also note that, from his Wikipedia edits and e-mail comments, ds may have more familiarity with Wikipedia processes than would be expected based on those 4 IPs' edit histories.

As I see it, ds's edits run afoul of multiple content and behavioural rules that govern the use of this site:

• Conflict of Interest Guideline
• Spam Guideline
• Wikipedia is not a Soapbox
• Wikipedia is not a Link Farm
• Vandalism Policy (after ignoring the first warning).

Given the gravity of ds's threats, I would appreciate the community's review of our respective actions in this matter.
Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know little of law surrounding this type of thing, but I fail to see how he has any case. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and it is not like we are excluding his links from those articles while including other ones. Wikipedia has a right to formulate guidelines for itself, and as long as we follow them, I see no way that he can force us to add his links. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't actually answer your question. My answer is, treat him just as you would any other spammer. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We had lots of trouble with the long-since-banned User:Tecmobowl trying to post his personal baseball card page, and it was removed from all pages, as far as I know. Whoever "ds" is, he's blowing smoke, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, and hence the "protected free speech" stuff is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 216.73.161.196 for violating 3RR on T206. I will be blocking the others for the same duration as sock puppets. --Selket ^Talk 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else. You did nothing wrong. Suggest ignoring his email. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this spammers email harassment. User is in clear violation of multiple policies including Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather that no actual legal threat has yet been made on-wiki. If this happens, it is traditional to issue an indefinite block per WP:NLT until the threat is withdrawn. I didn't known that IPs could use Wikipedia email; I wonder how he reached you. If he is trying to intimidate you via email, a vigorous response would certainly be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A.B. has her e-mail address listed on her page; one simply has to navigate through to find it. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the bright side, this person just pretty conclusively demonstrated they're a spammer, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected speech? How is Wikipedia subject to the First Amendment? Isn't it technically a private website, that the Wikimedia Foundation can ban anyone from for any reason? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yet another legal threat from someone who knows nothing of the law(yaltfswknotl). _{1 != 2} 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world

Maybe this is the wrong place, maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but I'm a bit concerned about the comments verging on racialism by some posters on the talk page and feel there may be an incident brewing.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "This article should be removed" section as it was started entirely by IPs with highly provacative troll-style comments (and I suspect one or more of them may be an IP sock of indef blocked User:Protest against islamic imposition, but who knows). A recent AfD already ruled on that, so there is no need to rehash it, especially in the sensationalist terms being used by the IPs. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Thanks, maybe I should have been bold and done that myself, but I wasn't sure about the etiquette. Doug Weller (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I felt it was eminently AFd'able, irrespective of the mere 5 users who opined a few months ago. Ergo Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the Islamic world (2nd nomination). Hopefully being here it will attract double plus 5 votes for consensus either way. Allah Akbarkimedies. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I probably should have focused more on the sensationalist terms being used by the editor(s) in question rather than their calls for deletion. The article has a lot of problems, which clouds the issue -- but the fact remains that some editor(s) are being unnecessarily provocative. I've got an eye on it, but hey, if the AfD succeeds, that would save me some work! ha ha ha... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

JB196 again

Just blocked Team4D‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock of JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given this guy's history, could use some help playing whack-a-mole. Blueboy96 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg

Considering who this is, you deserve this already: the Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prize goes to sysops who tirelessly block returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked in checkuser, and (1) as usual, tracking JB196 is like going down a rabbit-hole (2) interestingly enough, these all appear to be coming from home DSL IPs - he couldn't possibly be running out of proxies, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Were they the same ISP/geographic location? If not, maybe he's using a botnet? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

...man, Durova, every time I see that picture while scrolling quickly through a page, I think it's a mushroom cloud from a nuke test... Rdfox 76 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. JB's back? Just like old times. Hopefully he's not proxying. SirFozzie (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nostalgia ... or something :) Co-incidentally, I removed his RL name from a page here the other day. Privacy reasons. Oh well ... - Alison ^❤ 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He has voluntarily disclosed his own identity on Wikipedia. The privacy policy doesn't kick in automatically in his case. We don't throw his identity around unnecessarily, but FYI those voluntary disclosures of his were key to connecting his BooyakaDell sock to his original account. Since he hasn't actually vanished, the right to vanish doesn't apply. Durova^Charge! 11:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

George Reeves Person at it Again

Resolved

 – user blocked Sasquatch t|c

My talk page is constantly being reverted by 118.98.171.74, who is the banned user BoxingWear/Projects/etc. (aka, the George Reeves Person). He had a pretty ugly incident on Jimbo's talk page yesterday using the proxy 68.144.163.60.MKil (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)MKil

I do not know what happened here but it seems boxingwear simply wanted to reply to the problems at hand. Whatsupdoggy (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he uses open proxies when the Chicago Public Library is blocked; this one is in Indonesia. I blocked it. I'm sure he'll love me even more for this than he already does (oh, and by the way, as soon as this thread is archived, he'll edit it to remove "Projects" and "George Reeves Person" from both our comments). Antandrus (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No comments, antandrus and mkil have been working together for a long time so we know what the problem is.Whatsupdoggy (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, now he's using his Whatsupdoggy account. The guy is persistent, I'll give him that.MKil (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)MKil

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MKil&action=history Mkil knows the rules on privacy, i simply tried to help, look at my account history, i tried to help with previous incident, to no avail.

I am not the one to comment if boxingwaer is this and that or whatever, but I know privacy rules have been violated and mkil and antandrus know this very very well.

The above user thinks everybody is boxignwear, i simply reverted his page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MKil&action=history privacy vilation, mkil is using names, not name of the account he is not supposed to use, now he even posted same reply on noticeboard, this problem truly violates wikipedia rules, i simply reverted the name, nothing more and nothing else, is that a crime? This site and articles talk about privacy policy a lot, antandrus as an administrator should enforce those rules, he is not, he is supporting mkil on this minor problem, i do not care if library or indonesia is blocked, privacy rules do not seem to matter to some people here... I am simply following the rules, I am not changing anything mkil has done, except the name. Mkil had 3rr rule problems before, many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR Whatsupdoggy (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for harassment, apparent single purpose account and most likely sockpuppetry. Sasquatch t|c 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No harassment, read again! But if you think it is fine

 Confirmed GRP, sock drawer cleaned out. Thatcher 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No sock, believe what you want!

Thank you. If we could at least slow down his e-mail hate campaign that would be helpful, and he was using those socks to spam a lot of people. Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction, whatsupdoggy did not have any email registered to the account, nobody spammed anybody from this account, except reverting privacy violation, but of course nothing is sacred here, then that gives others the right to reveal names of other administrators, of course. No hate mail, except in antandrus head.

Is this contradiction, antandrus says hate mail, but no email registered, DUH-lol, you made my day! But you know blocking others will not bring you any results only continuation of hatred as antandrus wants.

Known sock--why not blocked?

Resolved

 – blocked

Hi there...User:Bjbarnettmusic55 is a sock of User:Jamesinc14 (one of my unfavoritemost sockmasters) However, BJ has not been blocked and continues to edit James-inc-ishly. Could we please purge him? Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he's a sock? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My question exactly. The user seems to be editing in good faith. The only evidence seems to be slight similarities in the kind of articles edited. This is fairly tenuous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's a good question; however, I saw the EXCEEDINGLY James-inc-ish edits (with attention to levels of detail that would make the average mortal mind crawl into a meerkat den and hide away forever) and the sock notice placed by Azumanga (who in my encounters with him hasn't ever been wrong about who was or was not socks of this character) and apparently drew a conclusion too soon. Generally, if there's a sock template on a user's page, doesn't that mean they've been largely proven--DUCK-wise or otherwise--to be a sock? Or is it much more informal than that? Gladys J Cortez 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Jamesinc14 has only like 6 edits, I find it hard to correlate the two. Do you have some diffs from other known socks of Jamesinc14 to show that these two are the same. As I am unfamiliar with this editor, I have no idea a) why he was initially blocked and b) what his standard MO is. Could you please provide that info so we can act appropriately to this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He usually adds nonsense to articles like promos which have a kaliedoscope theme (his first way of making mischief), news slogans for public television stations which don't have news departments, PBS Kids promocruft which has continually been reversed due to consensus it's cruft, heavy vandalsim of Little Rock television station articles, and incorrect affiliations for television stations which either don't exist or aren't going to happen (NBC Weather Plus for an ABC affiliate for instance). I agree with Gladys that this is Jamesinc; please look further into his known socks or alleged socks to see his MO (he burned through the Jamesinc14 account and moved on to 11, 12, 13, 15, etc., then onto other names to push us off-track). Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What Nate said. Also--if you peek at this you'll see that there are other BJBarnett-named accounts listed here. This is the first SSP case, and another, and another (This one is the best-documented example, about as clear-cut as it gets). There were a couple of cases where the closing admin couldn't find any edits by the original Jamesinc14 to correlate with--should we rename these cases to someone with more edits, so his contributions and their parallels are easier to find? Also, I'm notifying Azumanga1 about this, as he's the one who enlightened me, during my first run-in with J14, as to what I was up against. Gladys J Cortez 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what I needed to see. I just blocked him for socking. Marking as resolved. Keep us aprised if he comes back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Concisebliss

User:Concisebliss has been posting lewd images on pages relating to Nicklodeon. He has been warned but continues to make the actions. A block would be greatly appreciated! — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 21:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User is claiming that somebody usurped his computer while he was away. Perhaps WP:AGF first, and if it continues then a block might be in order. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually AGF, but I don’t know about this case. The user’s last productive edit was on 17 August 2007 and there were no edits between then and yesterday. All of the edits yesterday and today were inappropriate, including the uploading of two inappropriate images. The “stepped away from the computer for a moment” argument sounds a little disingenuous, IMO. —Travis^talk 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this discussion —Travis^talk 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We're extremely harsh on admins for allowing their accounts to be compromised. While a regular user isn't as dangerous, I think it needs to be made clear that we can't take chances with those either. Plus, the whole "It wasn't me, it was one-armed man!" defense is really stretching things at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Block indef until "legit editor" can prove the account is secure...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No productive edits in mainspace... Compromised or not, I think it's time to move on. Grandmasterka 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Compromised accounts should not be allowed to edit, since they are compromised. If he is a legitimate editor, he can always create a new account, and edit constructively from that one. If the new account vandalises, that one will be blocked too. Its that simple. As a regular CAT:UNB patroller, I would same some large % of unblock requests (at least half) have some form of the "my little brother/sister/roomate/stolen password/stayed logged in at public computer" defense as an excuse. I unilaterally decline these, and from what I have seen most other admins do as well. EVERY time I have seen this defense, there are no positive edits prior to the vandalism to back it up; its never an established user when this happens. These are always vandalism only accounts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To back up Jayron, I also decline those requests, and would note that most of those accounts were created just moments before the block. This isn't the case here, of course, but I endorse the block all the same. If it is back under control of the same person who edited constructively in the past, and they still wish to edit, they ought to know how to do so. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite my earlier comment, the august 2007 to the now recent bloom of disruptive activity does seem..well...suspect. Just so that we are all clear and on the same page, I am not disagreeing with the block in place at all. In fact, it seems reasonable seeing as though an account that has sat dormant for so long, with a burst of recent inappropriate edits, is a far greater risk to the project than potentially allowing it to continue unabated. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I blocked this one the other day without noticing this thread (he hit yesterday's frontpage article, at which point I checked contribs). Generally echo the sentiments mentioned above, as far as reservations regarding an unblock, but no particularly strong opinion on it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Multipundit

Can someone uninvolved please say a few firm words to Multipundit (talk · contribs)? This is essentially a single purpose account related to the works of Mark Burgin, UCLA. Probably a conflict of interest. I am particularly concerned about comments such as this one about Vaughan Pratt (talk · contribs), also known as Vaughan Pratt. Apart from editing superrecursive algorithm (a vapor-ware mathematical notion due to Burgin) and closely related articles, showing his own mathematical immaturity on the talk pages, and accusing everybody else of stupidity, Multipundit makes occasional edits to other mathematics topics; but those are mostly of dubious quality. [41]

To be fair, recent escalations have been caused in part by Yakushima (talk · contribs), who has confronted Multipundit with relentless criticism of Burgin. See WP:Articles for deletion/Super-recursive algorithm and Talk:Super-recursive algorithm for more details. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over his recent comments on the cited pages, it does look like Multipundit is suffering from an acute attack of arrogance, bordering on (or passing the border of) trolling. He's been asked before on his talk page to tone things down (by Hans, the user who brought this up), on May 14th, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. Would someone who's currently around more frequently care to have a word? (Multipundit has been informed of this discussion) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistant edit warrior

67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs) continues to edit war even though he's been told numerous times to discuss any content deletions on the talk page of American Family Association. See IP's own talk page littered with warnings and admonishments regarding his/her edits. The IP keeps removing valid and sourced content. No doubt an agenda going on here given the nature of the article. Trying to censor/whitewash the content doesn't mean it didn't happen. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• removed from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism pending review here. Jeepday (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• On review I blocked 24 hours for 3RR. Suggest follow up by uninvolved admin. Jeepday (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the "valid and sourced content" that the IP keeps removing. The first statement about the content of the AFA Journal is sourced to the AFA Journal itself — origninal research, which should be removed. The fact tags are par for the course. The second paragraph removed was properly sourced to a backwater newspaper, indeed, but his assertion that the quote was taken of of context should be checked out for merit. He was edit warring for sure. This IP editor needs guidance more that blocking, though. ➪HiDrNick! 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, another IP (121.216.227.175 (talk · contribs)), which is a Single Purpose account as its only edits are today to American Family Association and related McGuffey Readers, has removed the content in question. I submit that this new IP is either a Sock of either the original IP, or HiDrNick himself. If it's not you Nick, my apologies in advance. However, based on our past run-ins, I would not be surprised. You tend to make sure to follow my edits all over Wikipedia and show up in the oddest places. If the article continues to have sourced content removed, without discussion or consensus on the article's talk page, I will request it to be semi-protected. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry? I'm flattered indeed, but I'm afraid it's not me. I try to stay logged in when I edit. As near as I can tell the second IP is registered to Telstra, a large Australian ISP, and the first one is to Quest, in the western US. If I were inclined to revert you, I would have done so when I read this thread, but that's not my style. I assumed it would just annoy you, and you wouldn't learn anything from it. I thought it would be better instead to point out the merits of the IP's edits here, in hopes that passers-by who you are more likely to listen to than me might chime in. ➪HiDrNick! 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock of the other IP, a quick WHOIS will tell you we are based in different countries and are not editing through proxies. Instead I am a former editor on wikipedia (I can try digging up my password to my old account if necessary) who came across this dispute on another wiki. I have attempted to begin discussion on the talk page, however Allstarecho has not only failed to participate despite reverting me twice but has also accused me of edit warring.

I believe the material is not valid. It is claimed that the AFA’s article insinuates that raising children as Jews will harm them, the only source for which is a link back to the AFA article. It is not explicitly stated in the AFA article that raising children as Jews will harm them, nor have any independent and reliable sources supporting this claim been produced. As such I believe this claim constitutes original research, and must either be removed or resourced and worded differently. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho

Hi everyone. I am simply reporting two things: First off: Allstarecho has been misusing the rollback tool in a dispute, and it ought to be removed from him, as the consequences of such actions are clearly explained to users to whom it is give: [42]. In fact, I'm quite sure that the rollback page states that someone should not have it unless s/he does not have a history of edit warring, which Allstar has anyway. Second, concerning Allstar's page: I believe 121.216.227.175 is a meatpuppet of 67.135.49.116 (see the talk page history: [43] and ought to be blocked. I ask and beg that no one make this about the correctness of the edits on this page: I have already opened up a thread on the NPOV noticeboard, and cross-posting is no fun. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Persistant edit warrior. I semi'd AFA for one week so that all parties interested can work out a compromise or discuss the controversy without edit warring. I highly doubt that 121.216.227.175 was blissfully ignorant of the previous reverts. seicer | talk | contribs 06:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which, of course, by policy, is required to by a full-protection in the case of an edit war. But that's a side point: how about Allstar's rollback button and are we going to block the other IP? The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a block on the IP address would be punitive rather than preventive, and most blocks aren't justifiable for that reason. seicer | talk | contribs 07:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I please just say that I am not a meatpuppet of another editor. I am a former editor of Wikipedia who came across this issue whilst editing another wiki. When I was informed about it I was only told about what I perceived to be original research, not that there was an edit war surrounding it. Although I suspect that the user of the other IP has obtained their information from the same source I have had no connection with them, and there has been no attempt to coordinate an attack or anything of that sort. The only reason I edited the article today and not earlier (when I first received the news) was because of work commitments, if you check you’ll notice it is currently a Saturday afternoon here in Australia.

I have no intention to disrupt Wikipedia, I posted on the talk page immediately after removing the material and attempted to start discussion. Allstarecho has failed to participate, and has twice reverted me, at least once knowing that I had posted on the talk page. He has labelled me a vandal and a censor and a troll, assumed that I am a confirmed meatpuppet, and reverted my comments on his user page when I have tried to address his accusations. All this time he and other editors have not (as far as I can tell) made any real effort to attempt to resolve this issue, and instead have continued to exert their authority over anonymous editors.

Once again I am not a meatpuppet and I am more than happy to resolve this issue on the talk page. However, other editors such as Allstarecho must be wiling to debate whether the material is sourced or not before any consensus can be reached.

It would also be nice if the required full page protection could be implemented, rather than a semi protection that fails to restrict some of the edit warers. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like an edit war between registered and unregistered users, in which case this is an improper use of semiprotection. Mr.Z-man 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Will someone undo it? And how about Allstar's rollback? WP:RFR is quite unequivocal on this: "Administrators should not grant rollback to editors with a history of abusing the revert process." The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If ASE returns to editing, I'm sure someone will notice, and his rollback will proabably be removed. Until then I don't think it's hurting anything. ➪HiDrNick! 12:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, these edits are not vandalism, they are a content dispute. It is disappointing to see Seicer, an administrator, describing these edits as vandalism, when they are clearly not.

To wit: replacing an entire article with "George Bush sucks cock"; removing a poorly sourced statement about an organization full of living people; changing the lead of an article to tell the world that your friend is gay: one of these things is not like the other things. Can you guess which thing does not belong? This is hard, even for an administrator. Apologies in advance for the reference to the very young and possibility those not raised by television in America.

You can almost see where Allstarecho gets the idea that his edits were acceptable when people confuse the content dispute he was in with vandalism reversion: it wasn’t. ➪HiDrNick! 10:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Following Allstarecho posting a leaving message, I've unprotected the article. PhilKnight (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As HiDrNick notes, the editor has only retired his registered user ID, and suggests he will return as an IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if this was, in fact, a mere content dispute, or if it was original research. The actual quote in the magazine is, "The Athens, Ohio, man grew up in a Jewish home and developed a hostile attitude toward Christ." That sentence, by itself, only verifiably refers to the one guy in the article. If I were to similarly word a statement, "The man grew up in an [ethnic group #1] home and developed a hostile attitude toward [ethnic group #2]", would it be appropriate to extrapolate that all members of ethnic group #1 are hostile towards ethnic group #2? I think not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The linkage of "Jewish home" and "developed a hostile attitude towards Christ" does imply that hostility towards Christ is a result of growing up in a Jewish home. Anti-semites (and bigots of all persuasions) are often very clever at such phrasings - saying something that by a strict analysis is more-or-less unobjectionable, but at the same time making their intent very clear. If it was not intended to link growing up in a Jewish home with hostility to Christ, then the two terms would not have been linked in such a way. It's like the way that certain racist newspapers will only mention the ethnicity of criminals when the criminals under discussion are members of the targeted minority. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to draw that inference, especially given the AFA's other odious activities, but it's not up to wikipedians to draw that inference, and that's why it's original research / original analysis to do so. I added back the link to the full article, since I don't think it's fair to only report someone's spin (i.e. interpretation) on it and to only quote a single paragraph. I left the commentary article as the first link and the article itself as the second. They could be switched if appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass canvasser

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

Entire edit history consists of promoting the 'Ancient Greek Wikipedia' to pretty much every account they find. I've noted their activity and suggested that what their doing might be bordering on abuse, but I'm frankly uncertain if it's actually against any specific rule. HalfShadow 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that mass canvassing , no matter the type, qualifies as disruptive per WP:CANVASS. The only saving grace here is that these messages do seem to be targeting a specific subset of users who participate in Greek-related articles. xenocidic (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: They appear to be using Category:User grc-N, Category:User grc-4, and Category:User grc-3 as their lists for which user pages to post onto. Seems abuse of those category lists, and an issue with WP:CANVASS to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm not quite sure if it would be considered "canvassing" because they're not really requesting the users visit a particular discussion. xenocidic (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. CANVASS was created in order to prevent flooding of discussions, especially in a biased manner. Advertising a project wouldn't really fall under that; and the only difference between this and, say, telling editors in a specific area about a Wikiproject in that area is that this isn't actually on enwiki, but that's not really a big deal. If it actually becomes disruptive, however, or it becomes more spam than notification, the user should probably be asked to stop, and failing that, perhaps blocked (but only if it gets very bad). --Rory096 03:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought it here. 'Canvassing' was the only term that came to mind and, as I said, it's literally all they've done. HalfShadow 03:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. SPAs aren't necessarily bad, as long as they don't break any rules. --Rory096 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

← It seems this user has completed their strafing run. However if it begins again, we should probably suggest they add the messages to the bottom of individuals talk pages, rather than the top, per the guideline. xenocidic (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar vandalism, different identities

Edits from here [44], [45] and here [46], [47] offer almost identical contributions. Perhaps an administrator can confirm, and take appropriate measures. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They look like the same guy to me. Ramblinwreck72 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block on the IP to a month as an obvious sock of Theantiwbc Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and deletion of sources by User:Mrg3105

User:Mrg3105 persists in edit-warring and refuses to even consider a remotely flexible approach to discussion. Frequently noted by Admins for his incivility and uncompromising attitude ([48], [49]), the User insists on pushing his POV in the Belgrade Offensive article based solely on his reported "years of experience" and total intellectual superiority over other concerned editors. This is true to such an extent, that he has violated WP:3RR [50] in removing sources that contradict him (sources like Britannica and the US Library of Congress) [51] simply because he personally, based again on his "years of experience", does not consider them valid or "true". Instead, he insists on constantly replacing these refs with a quote (from a book he apparently owns) that does not at all address the issue (see [52]), calling it "one hell of a lot better". Frankly, I do not know anymore if any source whatsoever that contradicts him would be acceptable to this person. User:Woody is an Admin familiar with this matter, but I'd appreciate a general response from the community, thanks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR violation on Belgrade_Offensive. Note that Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has initiated an rfc for the disputed page, so appears to be attempting dialog. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes he proposed the RfC, probably to spite me because I said I would do it (just above on the talkpage). Perhaps he perceived it as a "victory" of some sort if he beat me to it. In any case, dialog has been attempted in the past, to great extent and with little result. The reason for this is that the User simply refuses to accept sources which contradict him, constantly commenting on the intelligence of those who suggest that he should. Without turning this into a content discussion, I will cite a few, more obvious, examples of the User's attitude toward sources:

The point of contention in the first example is the depiction of the operation in question as one conducted by a "joint force" of two independent Armies. The source I brought forth, namely the US Library of Congress, states, citing "information from Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919-1945, Arlington, Virginia, 1976", that:
"...Soviet troops crossed the border on October 1, and a joint Partisan-Soviet force liberated Belgrade on October 20."
Upon the addition of this source, my intelligence was criticized by the User, who later removed it and used the following citation to prove that the Armies were not cooperating, but that the Red Army was in total control:
"The Russians had no interest in the German occupation forces in Greece and appear to have had very little interest in those retiring northwards through Yugoslavia...Stalin was content to leave to Tito and the Bulgarians the clearing of Yugoslav territory from the enemy"

The next example, is the use of the English language adjective "Soviet" to describe units of the Red Army. Out of some strange POV, User:Mrg3105 reverted the use of the word and demanded I use the adjective "Red Army" as "Soviet" is in his own personal view, incorrect. He insisted that I use, for example, "Red Army 57th Army" and not "Soviet 57th Army". The dictionary source I provided (dictionary.com) was, of course, "wrong" in his view, and he threatened with revert-war if I did not stop using that adjective. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My alleged incivility is only related to my insistence for use of quality sources in articles. The so called deleted sources were substandard, and User:DIREKTOR refused to produce others. I replaced them with a reputable source,and a direct quote from it that substantially opposes the POV DIREKTOR holds on the subject. It could be I am wrong, but I am so far unable to find a sources that directly supports the POV DIREKTOR holds, and neither does he apparently.

In any case, an RfChist has been requested.

The 3RR has not been in effect because only two reversion were made by myself, DIREKTOR already being limited to one revert per day for previous edit-warring.

User:Woody is in fact mediating in an unrelated dispute between myself and User:Buckshot06 which I hope can be resolved amicably, eventually.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only suggest that the specifics of the article dispute be resolved during the RfC on the article talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to support User:Direktor's request. Mrg3015 has a history of foul, abusive language, edit warring, and general incivility. I raised concerns about his behaviour on this board before, as what I usually get when he disagrees with me is some variation on the following (original is at Talk:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II#Kharkov operations):

Want to be sure I understand your intent here Mrg. You've change all the battles of Kharkov to their numeric numbering. Here you have a number of redlinks with different names, but referring to the same operations. You've been the primary editor on this page, so I wanted to ask you what you'd think of me inserting links to those operations - since all four of them do have articles. Buckshot06(prof) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this. YOU go and buy Keitel's fucking book in Irving's fucking translation and then YOU write the fucking articles based on that and see how same they look ok. You are so big on talk, but will not spend the money on the books, but the books have nothing. They are written for a perspective of a very senior officer in Berlin. SO, the articles you refer to are NOT same as those on this list. They are the German POV base on a single source, and I will tag them as such when I find the template. Then they will sit there for another year as stubs until someone tries to improve them using Glantz's Kharkov 1942 book. THIS entire sorry issue with these three articles is the sort of bullshit that drives people away from Wikipedia. Enjoy. I have taken all three off my watch list. All yours now, or whoever.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Buckshot06 does not usually get this sort of response. The extremity of my response was due to long discussion that went on about the viability of basing the titles of three articles on a single source which is unreliable, unsupported by other sources and produced by a discredited author David Irving. The use of expletives were directed at the said book by Wilhelm Keitel and David Irving who had been proven wrong and bias by two courts of law. The article Buckshot06 refers to is titled Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, and therefore lists operations not because they are same, but because they are those conducted by the Red Army and named accordingly. Wilhelm Keitel could not have know their names during the war, and displays this ignorance in his book, which is written from a Nazi point of view (written during the war). I on the other hand use English translations of the operations as found in the books by David Glantz, a recognised authority on the subject. Why should I abandon works of Mr. Glantz to make an exception for three operations as interpreted by David Irving on Buckshot06's insistence? In any case, I would propose that the case/s be moved to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for arbitration. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No editors should ever get receive abusive responses like that, especially from long-established editors like yourself. It is important that you recognise that this discussion is not about the validity of your sources - it is about your increasingly uncivil and agressive behaviour. Disagreements over sources can, and should, be handled respectfully on the relevant talk pages and, if necessary, noticeboards. Instead you routinely resort to personal abuse and edit wars and are all to often unwilling to accept the consensus of knowledgeable and experienced editors. This is a long running and worsening pattern of behaviour and it is not acceptable. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Sock farmer's crop destroyed, farmer indef'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jlcruse has confirmed User:Jlcruse and User:Jonboy322 as sockpuppets. Both have uploaded multiple images claimed as PD (self) in violation of copyright, and consistently been adding unsource information to articles. The RFCU page says come here to request a block, if that's appropriate. Thanks. LostOldPassword (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Forcing through changes

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Simplifying titles: Removing "prince" from royals with substantive titles. Half of the ongoing discussion was cut of by User:Charles to try and force a change in the naming conventions. I was wondering is this sort of behaviour acceptable, the discussion is clearly still ongoing and Charles is still engaged in it. He suddenly archived half the discussion and then announced a consensus and said that a "new" discussion was taking place to change the conventions back! Is it possible to remove the archive (polltop, pollbottom) template as the discussion is still ongoing, I tried earlier but was reverted. - dwc lr (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is (the substitution stops short right at the start of the discussion). Just clarify why you're removing the archival template. As to Charles, he claims that the proposed item was already being used; I would confirm that it is before removing the archive template. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When I and others first contributed the discussion was open there was no archive template, but our objections to the change were completely disregarded. Though he is and was contributing to the discussion he suddenly archived half of the discussion (if you the look at the time stamps when he archived it there is whole load of discussion he completely missed out to effectively try and force a change). Then he announced that actually every thing under his Archive template is simply a "new" discussion. It's clearly the same discussion which is still ongoing so I'm asking if the Archive template can be removed as the discussion is still ongoing and was open when many contributed before half of it was shut to force a change. - dwc lr (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DWC LR is telling a half-truth. Chronology of events: The change was proposed because the convention is problematic for a number of royals (Swedish princes, etc). It sat for almost two weeks with one person opposed and two people supporting. Then two more supported which brought it to 4 to 1. For WT:NC(NT), which is slow anyway, that is a very good outcome. It then went like this (these are all my local times): At 14:40, there was an 80% majority favouring changing the conventions. At 14:43, I changed the convention. The discussion was therefore closed even if I had forgotten the templates. I even made a move to the effect of the new conventions at 14:44. It was only later that someone objected, but too late at that, and soon enough DWC LR followed in (very unsurprising). Another editor who voiced his opinion in time, but didn't like the outcome, decided to revert the naming conventions although a new discussion would be needed to gain another consensus. A third party, uninvolved in the actual changes to the convention (but who had voted in time), amended the conventions to reflect both sides. I put in the archive box to separate the conversation which introduced the change to the conventions. Whether or not the dissenters agree or disagree, consensus was gained and the conventions were changed. Further arguments are very, very Anglocentric and have little or no evidence to back them up. This being pointed out, certain editors still want to remove the archive box. They are welcome to form a new discussion though. Charles 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And at what time did you close half the discussion, hours after people expressed opinions but these were not taken into account. It's not because they opposed your proposal is it? What this is a case of is showing no respect for other editors and behaving like a Nazi dictator by only using half a discussion to try and force a change because the other half are opposed to a change. Disgusting. - dwc lr (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saving this diff. I would suggest you keep your mouth shut from now on before you throw around comparisons to Nazism. Talk about disgusting. My German relations LEFT Germany and my living German relations at the time FOUGHT FOR CANADA. Nazism indeed. Don't you dare ever make such a comparison again. Charles 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. - dwc lr (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Charles's statements are completely misleading and I have again removed the archive template. Charles inserted this template only when the consensus began to go against him. His conduct is unworthy of such a long-standing contributor. Deb (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please state exactly which statements are misleading before you smear my name. Charles 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles you are correct when he says at 14:40 (19:40 my time) there was a 80% majority favouring changing the conventions. However you fail to mention when you actually ended the discussion there was clear no consensus. However these comments though clearly posted in an open an ongoing discussion were completely overlooked and not even taken into consideration. - dwc lr (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• An admin seriously needs to intervene in this, Charles is basically wikilawyering, ignoring consensus, editing disruptively and being generally incivil. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how users point out the faults of those who disagree with them and totally ignore the actions of those who don't. Charles 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's your actions I that do have a problem with, not others, I have no problem saying that. Other peoples actions have no bearing on whether an admin needs to intervene based on your behaviour or not. MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You should have a problem with others. Pick and choose, pick and choose. Charles 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you are conducting yourself like a dictator by picking and choosing where to cut off an ongoing discussion to force through a change and showing no respect for the other editors (excluding myself). - dwc lr (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Several editors seem more interested in discussing the behaviour of other editors than in the actual content of the convention. Charles changed the convention after 12 days when there was a consensus (4 to 1). After he made the change other editors spoke out against it, and a revert battle ensued. Then Charles put an archive template on the early part of the discussion - perhaps not the best thing to do, but it did show that there was a consensus at the time he changed the convention. There clearly isn't a consensus now, and I have edited the convention to state that. But several editors just want to continue throwing rocks at each other. None of them are innocent in this, although calling somebody a Nazi goes way way over the line. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I accused him of acting like a fascist dictator earlier in the discussion. Should I just keep my mouth shut from now on? - dwc lr (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is YES if you intend to write in an uncivil manner. You are NEVER allowed to be uncivil on Wikipedia - even when you think others have been uncivil to you (e.g. by deleting your comments on their talk page and using the edit summary "Flushing the toilet"). If you want to be uncivil, there are probably better places to spend your time. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War/Continual Ayers/Rezco/Write Debate

This notice is about the Barack Obama Article. Various editors have been continually trying to push more of the Bill ayers, Wright, and Rezco controversies into the main page. A variety, though small handful of editors have been trying to keep the article as concise and clear as possible without going too far into the election debate issues by instead including blue links to the controversies themselves. However, a variety of editors, too many to name, have continually been pushing to expand various sections to include non-Barack information that pertains to the controversies.

At least one to two of the editors who are pushing for more info on the controversies have themselves stated that they are against Obama and are trying to show the "dark underside" of Obama.

Currently there is an edit war between the two sides over a massive rewrite to include a lot more information on the controversies. I am asking for a couple admins to step in and help iron out the situation and hopefully put this circular debate to rest. Brothejr (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is some disruptive edit warring and there is also a content debate on what information to add to the article concerning how much we should say about various controversial associates/friends of Obama. Some of us on the "inclusionist" side think there's a WP:OWN problem here, and we hope to post requests for more comment at Village Pump and other boards, then we hope to come to some consensus with a larger population of editors more amenable to compromise. Personally warning the warriors would be helpful, and hopefully we can still edit the article this week. We really need both administrator and editor eyes on articles that are this important. Noroton (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to offer some background to assist interested administrators. It is important to note that most of the content warring concerns perceived WP:BLP violations, as well as edits resulting in undue weight. The "inclusionist" faction described above wish to expand the existing text to include tangential or controversial details about individuals with whom Barack Obama has been associated with in order to "inform" readers of "all the facts". Since the BLP is written in summary style (with several sub-articles and related articles), the inclusion of these details is seen by many editors has violating WP:WEIGHT. An example of the problem is the desire by some to include details about Bill Ayers' association with the Weather Underground, complete with inflammatory descriptions like "unrepentant terrorist bomber". In keeping with WP:SS, such details already exist in the linked-to sub article Bill Ayers election controversy and the BLP Bill Ayers. I hope you find this background information useful, and I thank you for your interest. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal issue on LoJack

I see this on the Editor Requests page, and this probably needs admins. Take a look at this diff and this EAR request. Summitrt (talk · contribs) says he's a legal representative of LoJack, who want the information on their frequency that is sourced to FCC.gov removed for legal reasons. rootology (T) 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the individual is also leaving messages to me in the article text. I have already reverted twice. I am refraining from another pointless revert until someone with more authority on Wikipedia can help resolve this conflict. CosineKitty (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the user is an employee of LoJack and is requesting the info be removed for legal reasons, it should be dealt with by OTRS. I left a message on his talk page stating this as well. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the info back[53], since it was published on the web by reliable source FCC. User was already told on his talk page how to make a formal request --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of a secret. The LoJack frequency is in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 47 CFR 90.20.[54]. It's on the FCC web site in the main spectrum allocation table.[55] The allocation is for "Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems" (SVRS). Google can find either of those references easily.

I can see LoJack's problem. Newer systems tend to use cellular data networks, which have so much traffic and so many emitters that stolen vehicle transmissions don't stand out. LoJack, an older system with its own infrastructure, including receivers in police cars, is one of the few users of the SVRS spectrum allocation. Lojack is worried, rightly, that chop shops will start looking for transmissions on the SVRS frequency.

Realistically, the cat is out of the bag. Anybody with access to Google can find this info in five minutes. Still, there's an argument for taking it out of Wikipedia on the grounds that most crooks are too dumb to read through FCC filings, but might figure out from the Wikipedia entry what to look for. --John Nagle (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The dumb criminals wouldn't know how to build a receiver to monitor for those frequencies, would they? The risk seems to come more from smart people in the car-thief and chop-shop community who would build and distribute LoJack detectors, jammers, and the like, and these people would be more likely to be able to find the relevant information without needing us as a source. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed that section again. If it's public knowledge, there is no legal issue, and the whole thing is a bluff of some kind. Is there any reason not to put it back in the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually this is public information. Some random redlinked account removing information and claiming to be acting upon a legal request carries no weight at all. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it, and if the redlink reverts it back again, he'll probably be hitting 3RR, and he'll get turned in for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur that since the knowledge is public information and is available to anyone who wishes to view it, that there is no legal recourse that the company can use to remove the text. Warn, block if necessary. seicer | talk | contribs 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New user mass-editing templates

Resolved

 – Problematic edits have ceased. Anthøny 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:MadeForMe has created a new account, and a few minutes later he has edited +200 TV templates in half an hour, and is still going, see his contributions. He's mass-replacing a list of other local TV stations on the same region with a list of TV stations on the whole USA like here, including templates that haven't been edited for months, and he hasn't posted on any wikiproject or talk page or village pump page before doing so. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

user has been warned, and I have posted at WP:TV wikiproject --Enric Naval (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also notified Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Television Stations of the discussion here. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia says be bold, but common sense is also a guideline. This was waaay too bold and is going to upset a lot of people. The links to the different network templates for each state is there for a reason, and has been there by consensus; deleting them without prior discussion is a very bad idea. Linking each state's template for each particular network has merit, but replacing the existing template links does not. I recommend a revert until consensus is reached. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The problematic contributions from MadeForMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have ceased; tagging as resolved, under the assumption the matter is no longer current, further to the recent warnings. Anthøny 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do all the edits need to be rollbacked? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maaaaybe I would wait first for input from those two wikiprojects, altought I'm very tempted to mass-revert them tomorrow if nobody has still answered, normal undo with an explanation will probably do, since for most pages he made only one edit. And then I would nom all his new templates for TfD, with warning on the wiiprojects so they can comment on whether we should keep them for something --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm rollbacking those changes. I tried to use a tool that adds a sumary to the rollbacks, but I couldn't get it to work. I'll use rollback anyways because a) the changes are not good b) there seems to be consensus that there is no consensus to make the changes c) doing 300 undos by hand is not my idea of a funny saturday night, even if I'm bored at home. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Disregard that, I got the tool to work (FYI, the tool is User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Systematic racist vandalism by User:Steelizzle816

Resolved

 – User indef blocked. Hut 8.5 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at the contributions of this user here? Insofar as I can tell, this editor is nothing but a vandal, and making extremely offensive racist edits. I wonder if a lengthy block might not be more in order than a mere warning???--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef'd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Jammy0002 (talk · contribs)

Hello,

I'd like to report the above users relating to comments here and here. I feel that they are completely inappropriate. I was being bold in revamping the project and expanding the scope, as it was tiny, and various users commented. In fact lots quit. I then proceeded to make tha changes, having lots of old pages deleted as they were not needed. Electrical went and re-created the newsletter, and I discussed with him that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia as it was, as it had things such as cheatcodes, unsourced news about a game, and a list of participants, a lot of which were no longer involved.

Thank you,

BG7even 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I apologise if this is the wrong place: please direct me if this is the case. BG7even 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi One your supposed to alert me of a ANI report on me. Second, What did i say? Third, You don`t run the project it would be violation of WP:OWN. Forth of all You Said on Jammy`s Talk "I have been the only member who has done anything for the project with the exception of a few "founding fathers"." wel I joined after you and I have made majority of my contributions to the project. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And about the newspaper you didn't discus, you told me. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Majority of Contributions" - what does that mean? When did I say that I owned it? I aplogise for adding you on here, I have reviewed the posts and it was wrong. BG7even 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Majority of my Contributions, You delared ownership here. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In a rather depressing trend I've noticed nowadays, there's been a lack of actual discussion between these users outside of edit summaries. Second, the comments regarding "seniority" are utterly wrong as it is overly-bureaucratic. However, a list where users add themselves at the bottom is a lot more usual from what I see. But I agree with the point about not having 26 level-4 headings. In short:

1. WP:BOLD is policy and WP:BRD has been followed somewhat here (without much discussion, or discussion that turned into a dictatorship/taking-over debate).
2. The Wikiproject seems fairly inactive, but one does not need a Wikiproject to work.
3. An apology and more discussion would seem the way forward from here.

I would ask all the parties, including Bluegoblin7 (BG7even), however, to stop imposing their views upon each other by reverts, and work things out using discussion, following the spirit of dispute resolution. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Theplanetsaturn

Could someone please take a look at the Talk:Billie Joe Armstrong page (Bisexuality section[56]) and give some advice. Theplanetsaturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to reinterpret a cited and referenced quote from Billie Joe Armstrong and (IMO) distort the quote by stating what Billie Joe Armstrong "really meant to say", which seems highly WP:POV. He/she has also incorporated his reinterpretation into the article several times now (I thought it was 3, but was mistaken):

[57]

[58]

The crux of the argument is that Armstrong is quoted (referenced) from a magazine (The Advocate) stating: ""I think I've always been bisexual. I mean, it's something that I've always been interested in. I think people are born bisexual, and it's just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of 'Oh, I can't.' They say it's taboo. It's ingrained in our heads that it's bad, when it's not bad at all. It's a very beautiful thing." User:Theplanetsaturn has decided that the statement "I think I've always been bisexual" isn't fully reflective of Armstrong necessarily being bisexual, when Armstrong (IMO) clearly states that he is.

This discussion has gone on for a day now, and I have exhausted myself trying to make any headway with this person. I've given up on the discussion for now as I can't seem to make this person understand that their inclusions on the talk page and subsequent change to the article is POV. Any help appreciated, sorry if this not the right forum - I haven't really encountered this problem before. ExRat (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't mediate content disputes on this board. WP:3O might be a better approach here.  Sandstein  20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant Avril lavigne vandalism.

Wikipedia:Vandalism and this page both show giant Avrils. Wtf? PLEASE FIX? ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I found it :). Next time just click on the image and if the usage links trace to a Template...then that's where the vandalism originated.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool. But why isn't that account indef'd for such obvious, carefully crafted and planned, intentional vandalism? ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do believe it is. Metros (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The sooner they blacklist the 'overflow' CSS element the better. This has been going on for a while at the refdesks. They fiddle with the archive templates. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:19, May 31, 2008 (UTC)

User:Hegumen again

Resolved.

Just a day or so ago Hegumen was warned not to call people names like tatars (in the special pejorative connotation) and curse them (See [59]). Today he put this on a userpage.--Laveol ^T 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

48 hour block by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and listed at ARBMAC. We're done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

only fair to mention he self-reverted it 2 minutes after he placed it, and before the above message was placed, with the user summary, "watch yourself". In view of that, I think the block was perhaps not neededDGG (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a block reduction? The comment stays in the history, after all, and a (short) block may be sufficient to give the editor pause before he hits the "Save" button next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

thecubanchef.com and askcuban.com blacklisted?

Why were these sites blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.84.224 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

These sites were spammed repeatedly. I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia's spam guidelines for more information on why links shouldn't just be added into external links sections without contributing to the article. --Rory096 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions

MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is using a bot (based on his log to delete thousands of redirected talk pages. While some may be valid, he also deleted a whole raft of template documentation talk pages (an example would be Template talk:PD-self/doc). Users are instructed to redirect those doc talk pages in Wikipedia:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage. Based on his responses to complaints on his talk page, it seems he doesn't understand why these massive robotic deletions are a problem. I'm not sure how we go about cleaning up this big mess. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with the pointless redirect cleanup. It doesn't need doing- there is no appreciable benefit to Wikipedia from these being deleted. Do we need a redirect from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 24, not really. Does it do any harm, no. Is it of some use, well maybe if someone mistypes the url... No one would bother doing these unnecessary deletions manually so the only time it happens is if someone takes it upon themselves to run a script to do it. Drama ensues, Wikipedia gets no better. I'm rather tired of asking MZMcBride to stop doing this sort of thing to be honest. WjBscribe 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He also deleted talk pages that redirect to centralised discussions, on the spurious grounds that "they were all orphaned". This is incorrect - all talk pages automatically link to their articles, and if those articles exist, a talk page is never an orphan. Removing these links - especially in cases where discussion relating to the page is continuing on the redirect target is not only wrong but also disruptive to the point of vandalism. "Wikipedia gets no better", as you say - in fact, it gets considerably worse. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also notified MZMcBride about a deletion I questioned. S/he quickly restored it but I agree with the above, there was no need for these deletions in the first place since the deletion sorting list was at the same location as its talk page. I suggest a centralized discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere else to get some conensus on what, if anything, needs to be done about so-called orphan talk pages before another such run since it has apparently happened before. Also suggest a better check on whether or not something is truly orphaned since there's something clearly wrong with that check. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)