Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445

User:Consist and I: one of us here needs some advice

About a week and a half ago, I noticed this report on ANI, and because I operate in articles that are often concerned with phylogeny, I took interest in the activities of User:Consist, the user in question. For those coming late to the party, Consist is the handle of Mats Envall, who had a paper in the May 2008 issue of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and is now going through classification articles such as Cladistics, Clade, Phylo Code, and Linnean taxonomy and inserting his position that he has falsified cladistics as the be-all and end-all. When questioned about his edits, he responds with lengthy rambling posts to talk pages, or discusses his personal enmity toward cladists (see previous diff), who he explains have attempted to suppress him for 14 years. His main point is that he claims to have "falsified cladistics' denial of paraphyletic groups," and he apparently regards cladistics as some sort of great negative that needs to be overturned.

I and others (EdJohnston, Sjö, and C.Fred) have attempted to communicate to him several times and explain to him how Wikipedia works. He appears to simply not care that what he is doing is not how things are done here, displays the classic disruptive editor sign of blaming problems on the actions of other editors, and generally behaves as if he is on a mission of great importance that is not to be disrupted, above the rules, and will not be stopped. He occasionally issues borderline insults regarding the competence of those who question his actions (see for example the fifth and seventh sentences in this reply to Sjö, and the ninth and tenth on this reply to me). From where I sit, he is acting as a disruptive editor with little chance of becoming productive. I would like someone else who is not as close to take a look, though. It may be that none of us who have tried are communicating properly. What gets me is that he obviously has communicated with others in the past, in order to get his paper published, yet he so far is not taking advice from others here. J. Spencer (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly cool that he's declared his intention to continue editwarring, despite your referring him to lots of very relevant policies. I'm keeping an eye on this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look. I'm going to disengage from him for the time being, as the situation is not doing any favors for my editing, and he may well be a better editor without my attention. J. Spencer (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd backed off for a while, but his declaration today that "The battle is just commenced" (see diff for full context), coupled with two edits to the introduction of articles, tell me he's unwilling to reconsider his position and has committed to editwarring—enough so that I gave a final warning this evening. He seems to know the subject material, so he would be useful to have as an editor. However, if he's not going to edit constructively, it's time to prevent further disruption, IMO. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Block of House of Reps IP

Just a notice (as instructed on the IP talk page) - Maxim blocked User talk:143.231.249.141 for 12 hours for repeated vandalism. Has been appropriatedly reported to the WikiMedia Foundation committee notice board. Tan | 39 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that User:OfficeMax immediately appeared as a sockpuppet of the IP. The name violates policy, as OfficeMax is an office supply company in the United States. Although an Admin unblocked the account, claiming e-mail offers of reformed behavior, It needs to be blocked for name violations. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Name has been reported to the Username folks, but a quick followup would be good. ThuranX (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Could it just be Max, who works in an office? The contribs don't suggest any COI. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kevin. If someone's last name is McDonald, there's no "copyright violation" with usernames. Unless the contribs reveal a COI interest, there's no reason to be concerned about this. Tan | 39 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy is clear, no company names. (To be clear, WP:U 1.2) ThuranX (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read this policy. "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." Tan | 39 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Knowing how many company names there are, if we did explicitly prohibit them all, I seriously doubt many names would be left. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have declined to block this user as a UAA violation. If there are other problems with this user it should be dealt with accordingly, but the username was not in violation of policy. Shereth 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be doing the same thing it was doing as an IP address, and is continuing to make seriously non-NPOV edits. I just reverted the user at Dina Titus. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Re-blocked. The user is evidently making no attempt to make good on the conditions under which he/she was unblocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pesposito7

Resolved

An obvious troll. [1] I wasn't sure where to start. This seemed like a good place. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I won't call him a troll, but he's clearly wrong. So long as Tulowitzki, or any player, is still under contract then he's not retired. We can do better than this; he's still on 40-man roster, so he's still on the team. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is an absolutely asinine complaint. I'm not a troll, I was just misinformed and accidentally posted false information on the Troy Tulowitzki page. He isn't retired, I get it, no need to report me. Find something better to do, since you enjoy "killing vandals" (that warrents a complaint in itself) so much. I'm not a vandal, I just try to keep Wikipedia informed. Sorry for trying to make this website a better place. Pesposito7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Marking this resolved; I think we're done here. No need for it to get so heated this quickly. Pesposito7 is, by all appearances, a new user who made a mistake. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Block Request

I'm requesting that users Chanandler and Malak1000 be blocked because of a marketing war which they have been persistently conducting on La Fee Absinthe. Wahrmund (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They must be given notice first, which I've done. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not listening to me

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to make a page for very notable Odie the Talking Pug and these upstarts and teenagers won't even let me start and have been calling me abusive names. I just want to help. Can you ask them to leave me alone and stick to their own business? Pug power (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you a piece of advice. Insulting others by calling them "upstarts and teenagers" is not the best way to secure help from admins. I've looked at your contributions. You have tried to create a page on a novelty dog called Odie, but apart from one spot on an entertainment show you have failed to show evidence that this dog is "very notable". Unless you can do that we cannot have a page on him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please can you show where you have been called an abusive name. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You could write your prospective article contents on your user talk page and let others judge its notability. The only "Odie" I know of is in the Garfield comic strip, but he doesn't talk, he just drools. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:CSD#A7 apply to dogs anyway? Not that notability was established in any case. --Rodhullandemu 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dogs are people too :> Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"This article may meet the criteria for speedy deletion because it is about a real person/animal/plant/fungi/protozoan/alien/rock and it does not indicate why the subject is notable, important or special. (CSD #A7b)" . :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that appearing on Leno or Letterman would automatically qualify. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Qualify to survive speedy deletion, yes. Qualify to survive AFD, no (at least, not by itself). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more the fact that the article was deleted before I could 1 put enough information in it to prove notability. Search for Odie the Talking pug on the internet and you will find lots of hits. You should at least let it have the chance to go though some kind of deletion review rather than deleteing it because its a talking dog. In fact, the article had gone before I could even write hangon, and then I got told off for vandalism when I wrote holdon. I understand you might not all like pugs - they are my life. And after learning of the upsetting news of Odie's death I thought this would be a fitting memorial. Pug power (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for calling you upstarts and teenagers but there definately was a teenager - i have had years of experience with pugs and know my stuff! I was a bit worked up perhaps with the original text. Please dont call me a vandal though - I'm not here to make trouble, just to spread the word about pugs. Pug power (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the dog can actually talk, that might be notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a mixed metaphor, but when I hear the term "pugs" I can't help but think of one of Harvey Korman's lines from Blazing Saddles. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Simply having a lot of hits is not enough, the subject must have coverage in reliable third party sources. You should read the page I linked to. If you can find some sources, include them in your references. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pug Power, I don't have any comments about the notability of Odie either way, but you might want to see WP:MEMORIAL for some information that is relevant to what you are trying to do. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so it's the late Odie the Talking Pug. Someone needs to find out what its last words were. Probably something poignant from Shake-speare. Or perhaps from Snoopy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to sit here and take that sort of comment, "Bugs". That's an unkind joke to make at any time, least of all to someone who has just discovered the death of a pug they have always admired and were fond of. I know I'm new to this site, but I would have expected better.

I will try and find some sources for my article about Odie the talking pug, and hopefully it will become an article worthy for far more than many of the articles on here. Pug power (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You had failed to mention that it was your own dog that had died. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my own dog, but I was upset to hear of the news. There's stuff about it on Otie's website Pug power (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is it Odie or Otie? And I must ask again, did it have any last words? Why do you assume that question is "unkind"? It's a talking dog, it should have something to say, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Doing a little research on Odie, the dog was featured on Montel Williams talk show for saying "I love you". Outside of that though, I really can't find any other sources. Is a 1-time appearance on a national talk show enough notability for an article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Pug power, Baseball Bugs' joke was in poor taste and off-topic anyway. But regardless, as others have mentioned here, Pug power, you need to provide diffs of the "abusive names" if you want administrators to act accordingly. As for the article being deleted before you could finish it, consider creating a subpage where you can work on the article in peace, then I suggest asking an experienced editor if they think it would survive as a true article (they may say the article needs more reliable sources). If they say it has a good chance, then you could copy/paste the article to Odie the Talking Pug. If you want to get back the article text that was deleted, you can follow the steps outlined here. Hope that helps. -kotra (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not "off-topic". It speaks to the notability (or lack thereof) of this dog. There have been countless animals on talk shows. Does that make them notable? Probably not by itself. And the "memorial" aspect of this, which appears to be the main point in posting the article, makes it questionable. But if the animal can be demonstrated to be "notable", the article could exist, even without the "memorial" aspect. A good guideline would be other notable animals, such as Lassie or Rin Tin Tin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the "last words" joke. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If it was clear, and you're serious that the joke "speaks to the notability (or lack thereof) of this dog", then I don't understand how. Most notable people don't have their last words recorded. -kotra (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's claimed to be a talking dog. That's the reason it was on Montel or whatever. It has no other claim to notability that I can see. And if it talked, it would be interesting to know what it had to say, if anything, near the end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the dispute in question? Discussing and acting on incidents is what this noticeboard is for, not random curiosity about a tangentially-related topic. -kotra (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The core issue is that the editor wants to create an article about a supposedly talking dog. The core question is whether that animal is notable or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, then how would the dog's last words assert any notability on the part of the dog? Anyway, I acknowledge this line of discussion is leading nowhere, so this is my last comment. -kotra (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it in good taste for someone to make sure everyone knows when he or she finds something offensive or in bad taste? If someone takes offense at a deserted forest, should anyone give a shit? By morning, I told the joke about the four nuns in Northern Ireland, by afternoon I told the joke about the two rabbis in Dachau, and by night I told the one about the three Jains in the Thunderdome - what am I? And just what is the sound of one hand taking offense? _{Bugs' question neded to be asked...} --Badger Drink (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first and second questions, I don't see why not. To answer your third and fourth questions, I won't be answering your third and fourth questions. -kotra (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Badger Drink, it sounds like you have a cob on your shoulder. I didn't come here to be told a load of sick jokes. I hope that when your pets die you are surrounded by the mockers as you stand weeping with the forlorn and still bundle of fur in your hands.

As a response to Bugs's question, which to be fair did sound unkind and facetious to someone trying to create an article 1. about a dog that has recently passed away and 2. about a dog they have admitted fondness to. Isnt there a guide on wikiedia to not wp:bite people? But as the only words that Odie ever said were "I LOVE YOU", I imagine his dying words would have been the same. And what better words for a dying pug to utter to his beloved owner?

I dont want to let my love of pugs cloud the issue - Odie will be remembered by thousands of people whether or not he is on the Wikipedia. Personally I think he is notable but I guess you all will be the judge when I re-make his page. I will put it on my usrpage so it can't be deleated before I even get a chance to hangon. That's all I ask - that and a bit of civility on this page Pug power (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs has, eh, a caustic nature about him at times, but he really is a good guy and wants the best for the encyclopedia. I am sorry for the lack of sensitivity that you have encountered here. ANI can be a pretty dramatic place, and when somebody comes in yelling about "teenagers and upstarts" calling them "abusive names" (without providing any diffs, mind you -- and please check this link if you don't know what a diff is or how to create one) just because a pop culture article they created was deleted, we tend to get a little dismissive.

In addition, for many of us humor is our way of dealing with the crushingly fleeting nature of life on Earth. I am sure Bugs and Badger didn't mean anything malicious by their comments.

If you would like to create a memorial page for Odie, I suggest MySpace [[2]] as the appropriate place. For now, I am marking this thread as Resolved because I do not think any further action is necessary. And I once again apologize that your experience at Wikipedia has so far been a negative one. I hope you continue to participate on the project. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs' comments are completely inappropriate and disrespectful. As for the subject: please create an article on this subject, along with a reference(s). If you do so it should not be deleted without first going through our Articles for Deletion process, and if it is you can complain about it here. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These are fair points Jay. I was definately worked up when I posted the first bit because it seemed that a load of teenagers were removing my article not only before I could finish it, but before I could even put hangon. I also don't appreciate being called a vandal. And I would have expected to be treated nicer on this board from the people who are in charge. However I accept your point, and can cartainly see your point about Bugs - he does seem a particularly flippant character, but maybe I was over-reacting. However, Badger's comment was full of foul language and sick jokes. It might be appopriate in certain circles, but not to someone who has come seeking help. I agree with you, however - there is no point going over this again. I hope you will at least give my article the benefit of the doubt when I have finished creating it. Yours, Pug power (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your article will be judged by the quality and sourcing. Badger felt that we shouldn't have to tippy toe around the aledged "offence" felt by someone who's username is the exact same name as that used by the dogs owner on myspace, who's admitted writing a "fitting memorial" for a bloody dog, who wrote started this thread by being rude to people who were clearing this encylopedia of cruft.Baseball Bugs is not required to be respectful of a novelty dog! This is a serious encylopedia after all. Enough of this sillyness. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If this was a "serious" encyclopedia, we wouldn't have articles on Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, any of the nearly 500 Pokemon, Lolcat, or GEICO Cavemen. Wikipedia doesn't restrict itself to "serious" subjects. We also have a whole slew of articles on "bloody dogs". That said, I agree that the article will be judged by the quality and sourcing. Anyway, the issue is resolved for now. -kotra (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bloody dogs?" Wow. And they called me caustic. :) Hey, that reminds me, it's time for supper. I think I'll have one of my favorites - frankfurters with ketchup. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you were referring to my usage of "bloody dogs", I was just quoting Theresa Knott. Also, in the UK "bloody" doesn't always have anything to do with literal blood. You probably knew that, but I thought it worth explaining just in case. I ruin humor. -kotra (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It never hurts to explain a joke to the Great Unwashed. :) I was just surprised the guy didn't get upset over that expression. It used to be considered rather profane, didn't it? Although frequent public usage has probably rendered it mostly harmless, kind of like "sucks" in American English. Hey, I found a source for the dog's last words. The doctor asked. "How are you feeling?" and the dog said, "Ruff!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my serious encylopedia comment. I have no problem with wikipedia having articles on non serious subjects (providing they are high quality and properly sourced) but sentimental "memorials" and feigned indignation at someone making a joke, and then accusing someone of "foul language and sick jokes" because they don't happen to share affection for a dog that none of us owns is silly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feigned? How do you know that? Perhaps they were actually offended by the sarcastic remarks. Some people are emotionally attached to celebrities (be they human or dog, major celebrities or minor), and any sort of making light of the celebrity's death could be offensive to them. You and I may think it's silly, but it's not helpful or respectful to casually dismiss it as such. Let's move on, the incident is closed anyway. -kotra (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Resolved.

User:Alway Arptonshay has been moving dozens of pages in rapid succession, none of which appear legitimate. This seems to be part of the generic page move issue and has already been reported to WP:AIV. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the vandalism. If you come across similar cases in the future, you don't have to report them at WP:AN/I; your report at WP:AIV was sufficient and garnered a faster response. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User;CarolSpears

Due to recent discussion at WP:AN/I diff the editor was advised that they had been banned from editing. I have a couple of issues with the conclusion;

1. the discussion had comments from editors opposing the action, including an editor who has had extensive contact with the editor, including content disputes.
2. the discussion focused on wikilawyering over how a series information should be labeled PD rather than PD.
3. the most significant issue that the discussion only took place over 2 days, noting that XfD's have 5 days and RfA/RfB run for 7 days

I have some concerns over this though agree that a block was an appropriate action in the short term. What I see is the issue of calling it a ban, especially as one of the issue raised was the lack of response to the RfCU despite being told not to respond[3] go do something else for a while yet in doing just that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits. I'm inclined to unblock now when looking at the way these event have transpired, though I do recognise that there are some legitimate concerns so suggest consideration resetting the block to a specific period. Gnangarra 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I come at this from a Commons perspective where I have interacted with the user for some time now. They are a little unusual. Force/bullying/threats really do not work. Interaction has been successful there despite the odd call for a block. A challenge - yes, indef block or whatever - not in my mind. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are right - the consensus was for an indefblock, not a ban, and I hope that has now been clarified. Please see my rather long comment on her talk page. I've tried to give her a full explanation of what happened and why - ongoing copyright violations are not a trivial concern, and action had to be taken. However, despite being willing to unblock her myself, I would strongly object to resetting the block until we've had some assurances from her regarding editing and behaviour (preferably including accepting mentoring). EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an unblock or a reset until a consensus can be achieved here regarding the matter. We can't keep the charades going for much longer; blatant and ongoing copyright violations are a serious matter, and she has so far refused to modify her behaviour. I would feel comfortable with a reset on a block if she accepts mentoring. seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop accusing me of stalking Carol Spears based on her say so and no diffs ("that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits"). I reverted 5-6 of her edits on new plant articles she created based upon the discussion on the RFC talk page. I told her this. Her edit history shows clearly that these were the only articles of hers I reverted. I did not follow her around to do this, and, in fact, only looked at her edit history after being accused of doing so. I found the articles from the new plant articles, which I monitor and sometimes banner talk pages.
• If the basis for the desire to revert the community ban is solely that she was stalked, provide some evidence. Carol provided none, because there was none.
• Please remember the plagiarisms are a minor issue in comparison to the fact that most of the information she has inserted into articles appears to be factually wrong, except for the taxoboxes. All of this information should be corrected before she is allowed to edit again. She not only refuses to help, but she added these new articles, including one which was a major misinterpretation of the article she referenced. I don't think Wikipedia readers deserve to be given wrong information. This is particularly problematic in the case of plant articles because Wikipedia is a main source on internet source engine returns for plant species articles. All of her wrong information must be removed before she's allowed to add new wrong information. This request is what led up to the ban. --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Block", old bean, block... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, Gnangarra. I'm rather stunned by this and I'm having trouble reconciling this statement with the fact that you previously blocked Carol for one week for this comment. I certainly wish you would look at some of her more recent comments with a similarly critical eye. You say you feel "inclined to unblock now" because you don't agree with "calling it a ban". This makes no sense to me and even less when I see you saying that you agree a block was warranted. You made this statement some two hours after I had already corrected the incorrect non-admin closure and had removed her name from the ban list. If you think it's been closed too early and should stay open for another couple of days, then by all means remove the tags and reopen it but to use a mistake by a non-admin as a basis to lobby for overturning a clear consensus discussion seems like the very definition of wiki-lawyering to me. If such a thing warranted overturning a block in the face of strong consensus, then we're screwed. You compare the discussion length to XfDs. Consider also that an incorrectly closed XfD simply gets corrected and a closing mistake by a non-admin closer does not corrupt the entire process. You say that there was wiki-lawyering in the block discussion but it feels to me like your argument is wiki-lawyering because the issue of the incorrect closure was already fixed. I do believe that there was a consensus for an indefinite block with *only one* person opposing the block. I opposed the initial proposal two weeks ago because I felt that she just needed mentoring and education but she has been resistant to both and I feel this is our last option. The people who have spent the last two weeks cleaning up her copyvios and incorrect information she added to articles should be commended and supported, not blamed. I do not support unblocking now and I would not support a fixed term or unblocking until there was some undertakings from this user, including the acceptance of a mentor. The discussion regarding this user and the extent of her damage to the mainspace took place through at least three separate ANI sections, an RfC and over a period of 16 days; it wasn't simply a two day discussion. Carol needs to be blocked until we have undertakings from her about her future editing and an agreement to accept the mentor, whether that means that she remains blocked for one hour or one year is entirely in her hands but I will not support an unblock without such undertakings. Please consider, instead of doing this, helping carol by helping her see how a mentor like LessHeard could help her and the importance of our copyright, verifiability and other content and behavioural policies. Sarah 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. We're dealing with chronic disruption that is going to take weeks to fix, and if the user had had a better attitude about helping to rectify it, we wouldn't be here. If we saw a major change in attitude and a willingness to help fix past matters, then I'd be minded to support an unblock, but I think it will need some fairly solid (and enforceable) undertakings. Orderinchaos 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue -- ban template on her talk page

I disagree with a ban template being put on her user page, though, and would like this to be discussed, since so many uninvolved editors feel strongly about templating her page. Is this necessary under the circumstances of this particular ban? --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back in by error by misreading the talkpage, I have no strong feels about the use of the template otherwise. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected the Userpage; the editor has now retired, is indefinitely blocked, and is therefore no longer contributing in any way to the encyclopedia. There is therefore no need to cause any further distress to the departing individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, she has said she is considering coming back as a sock [4], but hopefully won't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just taking the piss

see here, lock it down, let her email someone if she has a valid reason for unblock. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ignore it, if it irritates you. Perhaps a decreasing audience may encourage her to address the communities concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It shows the utter contempt she has for the community. She posts nonsensical ramblings in response to the clear, well thought out explanation to her block. I can't believe anyone still thinks she will ever work within the community standards. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing down the page is not necessary to protect the encyclopedia. If you dislike what you see when you go there, then I suggest you take the advice of a doctor who replied, when told "It really hurts when I do this!", "Then stop doing it." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's helpful to give this troll a forum? At this point that is all that she is. People keep going to that page to keep an eye on the situation. There are, evidently, people that think that her feelings are much more important than policy and will unblock her as long as she promises not to do it again, but they won't bother to actually follow her and check her work because that would be insulting to the poor abused editor. This is a symptom of a bigger issue on WP. People who operate in contravention of community standards and WP policies are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "doing important work". So go ahead and unblock her, but be sure to warn the foundations legal team because you can be certain that she will continue to pass off other people's work as her own because she simply refuses to accept that it's wrong. We'll have lots of pretty plant articles with stolen passages and incorrect information, but Carol's feelings will not be hurt so everything is good. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is blocked, they're only supposed to use their talk pages for requests for unblock, or non-controversial stuff. If not, then typically the talk page will be protected, to shut up the whiner. But if the talk page in this case is to remain unprotected, anyone going there should forget about being upset, and simply consider the entertainment value of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do see the entertainment value, I mean I haven't heard such disjointed rambling in quite some time. However, as I said, there are some of us here to keep others honest and keep her from being unblocked while she continues to rant and refuses to (or simply is incapable) of seeing what she is doing is wrong. Why does she have so many defenders is my question. She's rude, sarcastic, and obstinate, not the qualities we'd like in a member of a collaborative community. I don't understand how anyone can read the myriad threads about her and still think we can redeem her? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That user has less chance of being redeemed than Frequent Flier miles from Braniff Airlines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Any redemption should be mindful of the editors trying to correct her existing garbage. One of her major articles is being edited right now, and, yes, it's full of incorrect information--the article where she said the mountains of Central and East Africa are just like the European Alps because the mountains of northwestern Africa (a different and far more ancient by hundreds and hundreds of millions of years tectonic regime) are like the Alps. These are good editors who could be contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, but are instead deleting pages and pages of misinformation posted by CarolSpears.

In addition, if she can't communicate to others in English designed to convey information, which she apparently cannot, how can she communicate with a mentor? She ought first be required to learn to communicate in a usable English on her talk page before being assigned a mentor.

I do suggest folks stop reading and replying to her until she does that. The problem with getting up in arms against her current level of communication is the assumption that she is trying to communicate. I think she continues in this way because she gets feedback from it. Really, it's not as clever as the space it has consumed, and it wasn't, even the first time. When people willfully choose not to communicate, instead of fighting to understand them, is it too much to ask that they make an attempt? If you really think she can write encyclopediac worthy articles, then how can you think so if you think she can't communicate in colloquial English with her peers writing the same Encyclopedia?

A mentor of her own choosing will, imo, have to be monitored, creating more work for editors already overburdened by her "contribution." How much should Wikipedia continue to be burdened to accommodate one editor whose clean up is going to take months? Let's ask her to learn to use her talk page to communicate with people first. Then, if she can learn that, she might be able to learn to write articles. Her word games are not clever or interesting or part of writing an Encyclopedia. They're just nonsense. What part of writing an encyclopedia includes nonsense? Besides correcting CarolSpears' existing nonsense, that is. --Blechnic (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Good points, and ones on which I will give an opinion - for what it is worth; she has communication difficulties, and I think that may be the case no matter what degree of faith she is currently editing under. Our/My inability to engage with her is no basis on which to close down the page. She has also obviously got access to some very good sources; ones which would be very useful if ever we could persuade her to channel them positively. Penultimately, she has brains - they are not being put to the best use at the moment, but perhaps a little more time will permit her to see that the only way she can indulge herself within the community is to follow the standard practices. Lastly, we iz zee goot guyz unt gurlz; We prefer to give everyone one final chance to contribute usefully. Your patience may be exhausted, and I respect your right to voice your feelings so, but mine is not quite. I think this weekend will be sufficient to see if there is indeed no further point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see linked evidence of her good sources and intelligence when it comes to writing articles. One of the articles she objected strongly about reverting (earlier than this current incident) she claimed that she mixed up two species on two different continents because she figured insects couldn't tell the difference. Unfortunately, the sources she used for the two species articles were far from the major sources for the species, all of which she ignored. Ignoring them removed the highlights of why her mixing up the two species was so bad, these were two species of plants that have been extensively studied in different locations and are well known throughout the literature for the studies being done on them. One, a British plant that has unique geographical records of its being introduced that go back hundreds of years, and the other a plant that has been famously discussed for its insect pests.

I have not found this show of good sources in her articles. A good source wrongly applied is worse than a second rate source. If you read a source about the mountains of northwest Africa being like the Alps of Europe and decide that is good enough for saying the mountains of Central Africa are just like the European Alps, you are not using good sources, but wrong sources, and you are not using intelligence, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think her current behavior on Commons, where she has not been banned, is going to be a good indicator of her potential for future success on en.Wikipedia.[5] "I am left to interpret your silence when I asked you if you considered yourself to be intelligent enough to know that sometimes, areas have names which also means areas." --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have now protected CarolSpears talkpage for 48 hours, as the level of discourse there (which does not involve the participation of CS) was becoming unseemly. The editor is indef blocked (with no current likelihood of the block being lifted) and cannot edit WP, and we have no jurisdiction here over what happens on other Wiki's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Socking

I'm not sure why we're even debating this now. She's just created Spears, Carol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to get around her block, and after a CU, it was found she created TheConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to support her feature picture candidate a month or so back. There's a lot of disruptive behaviour here and the evidence just gets more damning. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. The gift that keeps on giving. That should add at least 2 more weeks to the user's indefinite block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record she's recently used an IP [6] to write to my talk page.

Also, for the record, TheConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created for sockpuppeting at Custard Apple, and particularly its talk page, and was only later used at FPC.

However, in the first case she didn't hide her identity, and used it for the purposes of communicating with an involved administrator, while her talk page was blocked for reasons unrelated to her behaviour. IMHO, that is hardly an egregious offense. (But it would have been nice if she had been capable of being patient enough to wait for a 48 hour block to expire - she could also have used that - or another involved - administrator's page on commons.) Also, compared to what has happened since, a little past sock-puppetting pales. If Carol takes stock, and resolves to reform and behave in a collegial manner, IMHO this would not be grounds to refuse to let her back. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, once the protection expires, someone might mention on her talkpage that if she socks so that she might "communicate" then she has no need for a talkpage - and it may as well be protected indefinitely. She may be further reminded that any block evading alternate account may be also indef blocked/protected. I had no compulsion in protecting her from unseemly comments, and I have no compulsion in protecting others from hers. I would make such a comment myself, and take the necessary actions, but I am too involved - and would not wish to appear to be appeasing any side. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I fibbed; I have gone ahead and commented per above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

She seemed to be confused as to why she wasn't completely blocked (i.e., the IP address and new account creation still worked), so a user could legitimately be confused into thinking they're allowed those avenues of communication. I tried to explain further on her talkpage. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think she's confused. She's been around for a while and has been blocked and had her page protected while blocked before. As well, her comments on Commons to Herby about using sockpuppets suggest she knew precisely what she was doing. Her IP address is now blocked, too. Sarah 14:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page

User:Kossack4Truth is someone I've generally agreed with on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but this behavior is now more of a hindrance to all of us.

A little while ago, LotLE added a comment on the talk page that attacked me. [7]

I ignored it, and other editors asked him to remove it. [8] and [9]

Wisely, he did. [10]

Today, Kossack4Truth took LotLE's removed comment and added it back to the page, then posted K4T's own message condemning it. [[11]]. Touching LotLE's comments on the talk page violates WP:CIVIL as pointed out here and this kind of behavior is so over the top that the relevant WP:TALK section doesn't even contemplate it.

LotLE then removed his own comment again. [12]

One might get the impression that K4T is simultaneously trying to provoke two editors into a fight. When you think about it, it's actually pretty creative. Also destructive, disruptive and pretty damn far from encyclopedia building. I thought about leaving a note on his talk page, but I'm not going to bother. I'll notify him, and LotLE, that I've left a note here. Admins, please do something about this. If we had administrators continuing to watch the shenanigans going on at the Barack Obama and related articles, this would already have been dealt with. Noroton (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

I'm inclined to block for at least 48+ hours for this kind of provocation, especially as the editor already has two blocks (both for edit warring -24 hrs, and 48 hrs) and the ongoing problems surrounding the Obama article. But I would prefer to get a sense of the community for how long it should be. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time he has appeared on ANI and elsewhere, and given this is more of a longer-term abuse issue, I would recommend at a minimum, a 55-hour block that would increase with each offence. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I was thinking it should be higher myself, but given the lack of admins/editors who want to deal with this stuff so far, I'm not sure what the level of community support is. R. Baley (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm uninvolved with the situation -- outside of reading the comments here at ANI and at the talk pages, and wouldn't mind watching the pages when I am back at home. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I've seen (and been a part of) a heated discussion in my short time here, but this really surpasses anything I've seen. I agree with the initial post that it appears he was trying to provoke two editors into a fight. This is extremely disruptive, and counterproductive to the mission of the project, which is creating good content. As I'm just dipping my toe into thinking about these kind of issues, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but I would think a much longer block (on the order of 1 week or so) would be in order. This prevents both further disruption, and would (hopefully) allow the conversation at the page in question to proceed more productively. In the alternative, perhaps a total topic ban might be in order, which would at least accomplish the latter of the two objectives. S. Dean Jameson 05:03, 5 July 200
• Mastcell already blocked for 72 hours. Beat me to it. I'd suggest the next incident results in an immediate page ban of at least one month. Any support for this?. Barak Obama now on my watch list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Per my above comment, I'd definitely support a long page ban for this editor. S. Dean Jameson 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support 6 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth per MastCell and FCYTravis below. R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

• The other Barack Obama article-related thread on this page is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. It links to some previous ones. I think there have been about six over the past six weeks. I welcome seicer's eyes, but the talk page generates an enormous amount of volume and the bad behavior has sometimes spread to related pages. I've suggested in the past that a group of admins watch it because the page is crazy and big. Noroton (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Noroton and I don't agree on some Obama content issues, but I completely agree with his bringing this here, and with his request for an increase in admin involvement in dealing with disruption on the Talk page which has also included possible vote-stacking. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything, I would advocate for a longer term topic ban—e.g. for three months —instead of any outright block. This duration seemed to be rough consensus of admins on an earlier AN/I report (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). K4T has predominantly edited Obama related article, and mostly been disruptive doing so. However, his/her contributions to other areas seem to be productive and reasonable. Ideally, s/he could continue to do useful things elsewhere on WP. LotLE×talk 07:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Since I've looked in on behavioral issues on this page in the past, I've blocked Kossack4Truth for 72 hours, essentially for the reasons outlined by Noroton in the initial post in this thread. In doing so, I note a long history of focused advocacy-driven and disruptive editing by Kossack4Truth on pages relating to Barack Obama. I had previously proposed a topic ban for this editor, and he apparently took a voluntary, though relatively brief, break from Obama-related pages. I would support a formal 3- to 6-month topic ban as well-earned at this point, but will leave that for further discussion and for another admin to implement if there's consensus for it. MastCell ^Talk 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with topic ban proposal. The user has shown that he/she is fundamentally incapable of editing articles relating to Barack Obama in a collegial manner. FCYTravis (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This witch hunt is unbelievable. With the exception of this one incident, there is exactly zero indication that since returning from his 22-day "relatively brief" Wikibreak, K4T has done anything except demonstrate exemplary collegial conduct. Here is what actually happened, without the spin-doctoring:

1. K4T takes a Wikibreak from Obama related articles.

2. LotLE posts an endless series of snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations against Noroton and WB74.

3. Noroton approaches LotLE and requests removal of the false accusation against Noroton. LotLE complies, but he leaves his personal attacks and false accusations against WB74 intact.

4. Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3.

5. Upon his return, K4T notices LotLE's attacks against WB74 and starts going through LotLE's diffs on the page, copying all of his snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations, including the one against Noroton that had been refactored.

6. K4T posts all of these excerpts as part of a warning to LotLE to stop making such offensive remarks or he will be reported.

7. And MastCell blocks ... K4T ?!?!?

That was the last straw. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, you're absolutely right that other editors on that page have been responsible for some bad behavior. But K4T's response was essentially to bring a gun to a knife fight. Since some admins have shown a willingness to watch the page and get some perspective, the thing to do is present problems to them and bring along some diffs for evidence. The thing not to do is respond in kind and worse. The Talk:Barack Obama page doesn't function well as a behavior-changing noticeboard, and its function as an article-changing forum is hurt when we use it that way. I blame myself for responding to some bad behavior by occasionally scolding the parties on that talk page in the heat of argument, and I hope that bad example didn't influence K4T. I've apologized for doing that. Wikipedia has a system for dealing with bad behavior. Either deal with the frustrations of Wikipedia's barely navigable, clunky, stalling, backfiring, inefficient, inadequate, bruising, exhausting, often rude and sometimes perverse dispute resolution system or put up with some of the abuse or walk away. Lowering the tone of the page even further is a worse option. Noroton (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::During K4T's self-declared break from the Obama article he filed a bogus AN/I report to try to get one editor blocked / banned on a false accusation of lying and edit warring on the Obama page,[13], left an uncivil notice about the foregoing on the editor's page[14] and another involved editor's page,[15], defended an apparent sockpuppet against evidence of sockpuppetry on the pages by repeating an odd hypothetical having to do with racism and rape,[16][17] repeated his taunt that people he opposed on the Obama pages were "Obama fanboys" and accused one of "false allegations" while accusing administrators dealing with the matter of "censorship",[18] accused them of POV pushing, "revenge", and again of lying,[19] asked another editor to represent his interests on the page,[20] agitated on an administrator's talk page over the issue[21] accused then of "whining", holding discussions hostage, bad faith, and lying yet again,[22], and again[23] and again,[24] jumped into an edit war on a related article to support edits for which WorkerBee74 had just been blocked,[25] filed an inaccurate[26] and apparently retaliatory[27] 3RR report against one of the editors WorkerBee74 had been edit warring against leading to that block, got into some kind of edit war in another politics-related article and was referred to AN/I for that,[28] made uncivil accusations and began meatpuppeting yet another tendentious editor,[29] As soon as he did return to the Obama article he immediately began baiting and accusing other editors on the talk page,[30] initiated another edit war (see WorkerBee74 AN/I rerpot above) by breaking the agreement to avoid making changes to a particular section until consensus was reached,[31] then made the edits for which he was just blocked. The "break" from the Obama talk page was in name and form only - he continued the pattern of aggressiveness on the matter of Obama, just on different pages. The time on other articles does not seem to have changed his outlook or behavior on the matter. When he (and WorkerBee74) returned the tone of the page rapidly deteriorated, and the consensus that was building seemed at least for the moment was jeopardized.Wikidemo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3"

K4T was not on a Wikibreak. He has clearly been monitoring the discussion and contributing by proxy (just 8 days into the "break") so it is not unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. Also, these comments were not aimed at K4T in the first place, so I'm not sure why he felt it was necessary to re-light a fire which had already been put out. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the comments occurred on LotLE's User Talk page rather than Talk:Barack Obama, it is most definitely unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. But I see that all of the Obama campaign volunteers have arrived to ensure that any admin reviewing the block is deceived into believing it has "broad community support." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that would seem to be a pretty blatant personal attack. Not everyone who disagrees with you (and Kossack) is an "Obama campaign volunteer." We're just editors who happen to find Kossack's action in this case (and previous ones) completely unacceptable. Before noticing this thread, I was completely uninvolved, just for the record. S. Dean Jameson 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that LotLE was the one posting personal attacks and false accusations, but K4T was the one who was blocked 72 hours for warning LotLE to stop. No good deed goes unpunished. And LotLE is still here unblocked, urging admins to take even more draconian action against K4T for warning LotLE to stop making personal attacks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He seemed to be intentionally reopening bitter wounds by readding a retracted statement. This combined with his history at Barack Obama makes the block completely justified, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read his explanation on his Talk page, you'd have seen that he was unaware it had been retracted, or that he was reopening anything. But I see that he's deleted all that and hung out a "Retired" sign, so you got what you wanted: K4T is gone, and the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade remains. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll ask you again to stop with personal attacks. I've made not one edit to Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama. How am I part of the "Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade"? I came to this with an open mind, as a completely uninvolved editor. S. Dean Jameson 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We really need to do something about WorkerBee74 as well. This one has been socking under IP accounts, name calling, incessantly accusing people of lying, edit warring, antagonizing, calling perceived opponents "Obama campaign volunteers", dragging neutral third parties into the accusations for trying to keep the peace, and the like for more than a month and is a large part of the incivility - a few days ago blanking the article inadvertently in an attempt to edit war from a cell phone. The two of them have been enabling and joining in each other's disruption for some time and show no sign of letting up. Repeated warnings and blocks have done no good, obviously. All that is very clear if you look at the edit histories and this page's archives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's plausible that K4T made a mistake in not seeing that LotLE removed that comment. It's also a point in K4T's favor that other comments by LotLE remain on the page, even now (something I hadn't realized until now -- the comments K4T were quoting came from 2-3 different spots on the page). It's also true that K4T's decision to post that on the talk page was harmful. I think this is worth considering. I think the subsection "LotLE's recent behavior" that I'm posting below also puts it in some context. I don't claim to know what would be appropriate for a block length or a topic ban. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wikidemo. What about WorkerBee74? ThuranX (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE's recent behavior

I took a look at Kossack4Truth's (K4T's) recent comments on his talk page (here and here; since replaced with a "retired" sign). I see I was inaccurate in my initial posting here: I thought K4T's scolding post simply added back the single LotLE posting that attacked WorkerBee74 and me. Since LotLE had taken that post down, I thought the problem with LotLE had been solved, at least for now, by LotLE himself. But that's not true.

K4T took LotLE quotes from different spots, and LotLE still hasn't taken down those (they're on the page right now). And they are also venemous attacks:

• I take it the 2-1/2 editors swipe refers to WorkerBee74 as the "1/2", which is a nasty insult; the "condemnatory enough" is impolite. I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) diff

• Accusing another editor of want[ing] the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible is a personal attack. LotLE is also urging editors to move away from discussion and simply impose their will on the page, although even when he posted this various editors were working together constructively, so this post was disruptive, as well. I'd forgotten it, but when he talks about his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" is actually a personal attack; have no complaint about his other comments about me, because simply being a bit snide and inaccurate isn't worth considering here, and I was willing to ignore them: Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. Those "concerns" can most certainly never be addressed within an encyclopedic article, so our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). I have suggested with a genuine absence of ill-will that a better forum for these long essays is a personal blog, or other opinion publication. A WP talk page is just not an appropriate place for this type of material. In any case, it appears that his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" from settling, because doing so would remove the justification for the continued essays. So please everyone, just let the discussion fall silent. Let's use this talk page for productive discussion, and let the article keep it's perfectly neutral and concise version of the Rezko material. Dont' feed the trolls. LotLE×talk 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) diff

If these were occasional, in the heat of argument, and not representative of LotLE's contribution to the discussion about Rezko (or below, mostly about Ayers), then I'd discount them quite a bit -- but they're a significant proportion of the occasional comments that LotLE has contributed to the discussion about Rezko; they aren't in response to someone attacking him, and the one removal of his one attack, at the request of other editors, wasn't accompanied by removing any other attacks on WorkerBee74, who's made some solid contributions to that talk page (it's obviously not a competition, but WB74's contributions are a lot more focused on the subject matter than LotLE's, from what I've seen).

I've previously brought up two of these quotes at AN/I [32], and I'm posting them again to show that it's a continuing problem, not a flash in the pan (a two-week break from the Obama page was suggested at one point, but LotLE was never issued a block or even a warning for these, and I never asked for one, but I did bring it up):

• LotLE edit that's relatively mild: 17:13, 2 June 2008 diff

• LotLE edit I removed (it was in response to an edit I made which ended with me saying he was guilty of some of what he was accusing others of, it's worth looking at in context on the page) 17:40, 2 June 2008 diff
• LotLE edit I partially removed (quoted because it's short): The problem with Noroton's characterization is that it is at best WP:OR, and at worse an outright lie. [...] LotLE×talk 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) diff of the removal
• Another LotLE edit worth looking at: 08:21, 6 June 2008 this diff seems to encompass the whole comment

On a page that's had a lot of harsh words, these rank with the harshest. In context, they brought down the level of discussion, although just about every contributor to that talk page has probably made comments they regretted (including me). This amounts to continued, disruptive behavior that clearly led to Kossack4Truth's response, and WorkerBee74 is right to be annoyed that it hasn't been dealt with. I think administrators should consider his behavior as contributing to the ongoing bad atmosphere on that page. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're too late, Noroton. You got rid of K4T, which is what they wanted. The only way you're going to get anybody's attention is if you demand sanctions against me too. The people who are here to whitewash the Obama article get a free pass. (No Jameson, I'm not talking about you. Let me spell that out for you.) WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a great job of making sure no one listens to you, WorkerBee. Noroton, I see the issue you're describing; what do you propose we do about it? MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd be asked that. I don't know what to do about it, specifically. I'd like to see what he has to say about it. I'm not an admin and I don't pay much attention to what kind of sanctions tend to be given for what kind of behavior. I do know we need to stop this kind of behavior on that page, and LotLE has significantly contributed to that bad atmosphere. I see an attitude behind these comments that doesn't seem to recognize that people who disagree with him about Obama are sincere and worth listening to (somebody please correct me if there's evidence to the contrary). Either some kind of civility restriction, which would have to be monitored, perhaps with a mentor, or simply topic banning him until after the election. I'd like to see what other editors familiar with the page think about that. If he can't take down the attacks on WorkerBee that are still on the page, I'd give him a block for incivility. I can accept whatever editors on this page want to do about it, as long as the problem is addressed and, going forward, we've got some reason to believe the Obama talk page and related pages will be more civil. Noroton (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is worth something: I just went to LotLE's talk page to inform him about this new subsection, and I read this there: [...] I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That's a good sign. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch and learn, Noroton. LotLE will get a free pass. He might get another useless warning on his Talk page which will be ignored and deleted. That's it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting to address question not directed to me) Thanks to Noroton for thinking to remind LotLE. As I understand it the goal of blocks and topic bans is to stop ongoing disruption and prevent likely future disruption. All to maintain a productive, civil editing environment. Many on the Obama page said something out of frustration, suspicion, etc. But will they cause disruption if they stay, and will removing them quell the trouble? That's a separate judgment to make in each case. We don't ban people out of fairness, punishment, setting examples, trying to be balanced, avoiding perceived article bias, other content concerns, etc. Nor do we avoid blocks simply because someone is a good writer. From my observation, LotLE and to some extent some others have been aggressive in their comments, and have the block history to show for that attitude. My hunch is that LotLE will probably be contentious in an unsupervised contentious environemnt, but will not initiate trouble where none exists. WB74 has had many chances and after a month and counting is still repeating the very taunts that nearly earned a ban a month ago. He/she seems unable or unwilling to edit one of Wikipedia's most important articles without attacking peers. But that's just my hunch. If there's anything short of removing these editors that will ensure calm (and assuming no proven sock puppetry), that's preferable. I can't think of anything but there are wiser editors here than me! Wikidemo (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I respond out of frustration when well-established practice on WP biographies and quotes from WP policy, are ignored in a campaign to keep anything resembling criticism out of the article. A lot of work has been done by Noroton, by me and by others and we have proven WP:NPOV and well established practice require us to give criticism as much space as it's been given in comparable articles. Responses? Relentless personal attacks, false accusations, badgering, baiting, and lies about policy and the facts. When anyone responds out of frustration to the baiting, the lies and the personal attacks, you come running to WP:ANI. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this editor accusing me yet again of lying and abusing AN/I process? That would be at least the 5th or 6th time in a few days. If not, exactly who is he accusing of lying (not to mention the other things)? Wikidemo (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's most peculiar how you have always come running to WP:ANI after any real or imagined slight from Noroton, WB74 or K4T, but you never seem to notice the outrageous misconduct of such editors as LotLE until someone points it out for you. Please explain, WD: if you now concede LotLE has been "contentious" (another impressive understatement), why have you never reported him? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that question is predicated on an untrue premise and seems rhetorical so I won't respond. I've given my opinion of WorkerBee74 and LotLE's prospects for good behavior, and I'll leave it for any willing administrator to make of it what they will in fashioning a course of action.Wikidemo (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge. Like I said: watch and learn, LotLE will get a free pass. He was baiting everybody who disagrees with him; and now that someone has taken the bait and been blocked for giving him a warning, he posts a bogus apology and expects others to clear away any remaining bait. Then he'll wait for the next inevitable content dispute and start putting out bait again. Classic passive aggressive behavior. WorkerBee74 (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no one has come to AN/I to complain about me (not that that gives me a warm feeling inside). K4T was blocked for a history of behavior culminating in a pretty incendiary way of warning someone. When you're in the gunpowder house, don't go handing out lit torches to help people out. Noroton (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

As I mentioned to Noroton before much of this current AN/I discussion happened, I regret having adopted an uncivil tone at some points in the discussion. I think he did not see my talk page comments until the last couple hours. The comment on my talk page was this:

Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are any comments I have made on Talk:Obama or elsewhere that any editors feel continue to inflame the discussion, I authorize their removal, and will thank editors for doing so. LotLE×talk 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "I don't want be bothered. Clean up my mess." Would this be an awkward time to bring up the fact that LotLE retaliated against an editor who disagreed with him in a content dispute, by posting that editor's real name? Isn't that some sort of serious policy violation? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment is typically inflammatory and unnecessary, seeing as it is in response to an apology - as well as misleading. The post WorkerBee refers to was the editor's extremely common first name and last initial only. Perhaps not the best move, but hardly "that editor's real name". (And it was readily available to all with information the aggrieved editor had posted himself on his user page.) I'm not defending the post, just clarifying for readers that it was not as WorkerBee chose to describe it. Tvoz/talk 05:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The goal of any administrative activity is to prevent disruption and improve the editing environment. It is always preferable for an editor to see that their behavior was causing problems and to voluntarily amend it than to have them blocked, banned, etc. In that sense, LotLE's apology is a step in the right direction, though of course it needs to be substantiated by a visible commitment to civil interaction and lowering the thermostat wherever possible. I don't know what other admins' practices are, but I'm not about to sanction someone for something they've just finished apologizing for. If actions don't follow the words, then that's a different story.

When an editor apologizes and authorizes anyone interested to remove any of their posts which are deemed inflammatory, it reflects remarkably poorly on WorkerBee74 to spin this as "Translation: I don't want to be bothered. Clean up my mess." In the end, one of you at least provides a reason to think their behavior might improve, while the other confirms that they'll view this as a WP:BATTLE to the last, no matter what olive branches are extended. Is that how you want this to play out? MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I told you so

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Kossack4Truth_banned. That was the last individual editor that was left on the list (made by Scarian and myself) who needed to be sanctioned in this area. What else can I say? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did tell us so. You were right. In looking over that three- and four-week-old page, I see suggestions then for months-long topic bans based on behavior up to that point, including a long topic ban for Kossack4Truth and something short for LotLE. In light of the more recent behavior, what do you think is appropriate now? Noroton (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If Kossack voluntarily found a completely different (non-controversial) article area to be involved would be a great step forward. Wikipedia isn't the place for edit warring or controversy. I'd suggest another voluntary wiki-break for K4T from Obama. He was doing so well staying away from it. Perhaps this next wiki-break from the article area could be permanent? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T was not doing well staying away and arguably not away at all - please see my summary above under the "block" subheading of a dozen and a half disruptive article-related edits during the self-described break. "Voluntary" is not going to cut it - the editor's blown at least half a dozen chances in the past few weeks to reform on his own. If the "retired" message truly means retired, fine... but there has been a lot of game playing and strong hints of sock puppetry. Are we going to have to start this whole thing up again from scratch if he does it again? Wikidemo (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that we will soon see a newly created account making all the arguments of K4T, in the same tone, on the same pages. Any advice on what to do if that happens? LotLE×talk 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:SSP first. Otherwise, leave a post here on ANI. But he's retired, for now anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what would work well here: something similar to the ArbCom remedy used on Derek Smart topic banning the user and all surrogates of the user (i.e., suspected sockpuppets advancing substantially the same arguments as the user). That way, you don't even need to go through a complicated process every time you see a newly created account making the arguments of K4T. The first time they make the edit, you revert and inform them of the sanction on surrogates. The second time they do it, you block the account for a short time, and warn them that they are topic banned from that area. If they violate the topic ban again, they're indefinite blocked. Simple.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The enforcement instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart were pretty intelligently laid out (and repeated at the top of Talk:Derek Smart). They only applied to SPAs, and they cautioned against mechanical enforcement. When you start talking about "surrogates" or any account "making the arguments of K4T" or "advancing substantially the same arguments as the user", whose arguments overlapped with many of my wise, finely tuned and always reasonable comments, we start getting into territory that a number of people are going to call censorship in a prominent article that's already received media coverage for its editing. As I understand it, it was never so much K4T's opinions that were a problem so much as his incivility and edit warring. Every new account that shows up on that talk page is going to get a colorectal exam from the editors there, given the past history of comments there about SPAs and IP accounts. When we concentrate on discussions there rather than votes, that kind of bad behavior is even more weakened. I think demanding that reverting editors get themselves over to the talk page before reverting further, maybe linking in the edit summary to a Derek Smart-type of statement at the top of the talk page about 1RR or 2RR restrictions on the page, would help. Noroton (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this discussion from archive. Kossack4Truth resumed editing right around the time Misza archived this thread. His 48-hour "retirement" seems to've been a diversion to escape the sanctions being discussed above. Shem^(talk) 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: 4-month community topic ban

I propose a four-month community topic ban for User:Kossack4Truth on all Barack Obama-related articles per MastCell, FCYTravis, and others above. Discussion on a six-month ban tapered off once K4T had "retired," but he resumed editing around the time the thread was archived. I personally find six months excessive for any sort of sanction, and the election will be over in four months regardless. I believe K4T could perhaps become a constructive editor on politics articles once the immediate heat of the elections has passed. Shem^(talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a problem if he returned after skirting sanctions - he's repeatedly thrown accusations against people of being whiners, people out to get him, POV editors, etc. If he were to show up a month from now and be uncivil there would be a new crew on AN/I watch, new editors in article space, and in all likelihood we would have to start from scratch in dealing with the disruption. Also, perhaps I'm being paranoid or I don't understand blocks, but why would K4T be concerned about his IP being blocked once his login account was unblocked?[33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

I'd support the original 6 month topic ban. That would take us past the upcoming election. K4T has made clear his extreme bias agaisnt Obama, as seen in numerous 'Obama conspiracy' flavored comments above. He is clearly incapable of editing article related to the topic of Obama in a neutral manner. I support a full topic ban to run past the election, which is 4 months, and support the fuller 6 month to take us past the electoral college actions, precluding him from citing whatever extreme right wing sites start shouting that Obama stole the election by fruad or some such (should he win). keep him away till the harm he can do is mitigated by time and reality. ThuranX (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Crown Prosecution Service - Second pair of eyes, please.

{{resolved|second pair of eyes has blocked user.Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)}}

Not yet resolved. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Onewillfind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding in the same unsourced material over a period of hours; I have been reverting and trying to explain policy to him. Conversations are on my and his Talk pages, but it's clear he isn't getting, or even bothering to look at, policy. This is disruptive. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why an indef block for repeated abuse of editing privilege on an account that's 3 hours old?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block is totally inappropriate. The content Onewillfind was adding wasn't totally unsourced, just poorly sourced, and even if it was unsourced it wasn't vandalism. Constant reverting is edit warring, there is no 3R exemption in this case. Both parties broke 3R, Rodhullandemu should know better though. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, isn't clear vandalism, indef block shouldn't be an option here. Seems a little bitey to me not to mention pretty clear edit warring by Rodhullandemu. RxS (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That is hugely OTT. Please unblock, welcome him, and ask him to behave himself. He did source his edit, to an ITV New bulletin, which is a reliable source. That's a lot better than my first edit, though I admit I didn't go on to edit war. --Jenny 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• With respect, that's not how I read WP:V:

  Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page

  . I am quite justified, as is any editor, in removing that information, aggressively if necessary. Now you look at my talk page, his talk page and my edit summaries, and the timing. How many times do I have to address an editor to policy and it is ignored before enough is enough? I assumed good faith with this editor on numerous occasions, but he didn't get it. It wasn't my block, and I assume Toddst1 found enough reason for his block. There is a problem as to when is edit-warring over policy, and when is it over content? If editors persistently and wilfully ignore advice to consult policy, and basic, core policy at that, tough. and it isn't "edit-warring", it's doing the job you volunteered for. Since being appointed admin I've issued about 620 blocks. Not one has been overturned on its merits, as far as I can remember. Enough of this. One medical today, another tomorrow. You do the job. --Rodhullandemu 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think for starters poorly formatted sourcing is different then "poorly sourced". As Jenn..Tony says ITV certainly qualifies as a reliable source. And, really...pointing new users toward such general links as WP:5P after they specifically ask for help isn't very....helpful. His edits were not vandalism, and an indef block was not called for. This can't be how we treat new users these days can it? RxS (talk) 21:44, 8 July 200

• Meanwhile this remains unaddressed and I have just reverted one POV and one incorrect edit by this editor. Of course there's such a word as sporgery, even I know that. Some focus here, please. Put the pitchforks away for a while. --Rodhullandemu 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

I agree. Let's put the picthforks away and overturn this new editor's block; then we should try to explain the three-revert rule to all editors involved. HiDrNick! 21:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Put down the teeth, welcome him, help him navigate our bureaucracy, and slap the blocking admin with a trout. It's obvious he's trying to make constructive edits; he just needs help doing that, not blocking...a block, especially an indef one, is not the answer. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the word egregious comes to mind. As a regular editor who has been watching this page recently as a learning tool, I have come away more disheartened than better educated. This message will probably not be well received, and I am fine with that. The one thing I notice is that the daily admin drama is unbelievable. Sure admins are not infallible, but every day something like this? Had someone stepped in and explained to this editor like a human being what the issue was instead of hurling warning templates and policies 5 minutes into his/her stay this could have been avoided. It seems the editor was trying to fix the issue addressed, but not everyone is a wiki expert the minute they log in. Nor is 15 policies thrown in your face digestable in 2 minutes. The information does seem to be neutral POV, since it was widely covered. It only took me 5 seconds to find the information was accurate. Is it too much to ask that someone assist this editor by repairing (or explaining how to correct) the poor formatting, instead of reverting blindly and labeling them as a vandal with a POV agenda? This really needs to be rectified, and in my opinion the editor deserves an apology and a proper welcome. Or we could keep driving away editors by the truckload. Just my meaningless opinion. Angrymansr (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we have to say that it wasn't resolved. And the indefinite block appears now to have been a rather an unfortunate decision given the comments here. I have unblocked Onewillfind and left an explanation of where (s)he went wrong, what to do next time, and how best to add criticisms to the CPS article. If it turns out that this was a waste of time, well, we've tried our best. We can't do any better than that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. I would explain this in detail, but the others beat me too it. Does Commons have a "facepalm" image? This thread needs one. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There we go, commons:Image:Facepalm2.svg. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does the guy have a nosebleed...? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent on this discussion. Had I been around, I would have quickly changed the block. This should have been a 24-48 hour block. Thanks for sorting this out. Toddst1 (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this editor should not have been blocked at all, not even for 24 hours. How can you read the thread above and think, "oops, I should have only blocked the good-faith newbie editor for a couple days." That is not what the people above are trying to tell you. HiDrNick! 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WR on DYK

Evening everyone. Wikipedia Review was put on DYK and I reverted it because it has been used to harass other editors and in some cases, out them - I classed it as a smack in the face of some of our hard working contributors who have been attacked there to glamourise the forum. No problems with having an article, but putting it on the main page is in a whole different league. Alison reverted me saying that I did it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT - fair enough, but I did for the editors who have been outed, not because of my own personal beliefs. Alison is upset because of some of the things I said on her talk - I've reviewed then, and whilst I can understand how they were misunderstood, the way she took them was not the way they were meant to come across - I've apologised for the remarks because although it was not my intention to offend, it obviously had that effect. The readdition has since been re-reverted citing that the WR article is too self referential. Now - can we come to a consensus here about whether or not it should be included on the main page - there's certainly reasons for and against. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage content is complicated. On the one hand, anything in mainspace should be handled in a completely NPOV fashion regardless of our personal issues with any organization. To allow such behavior undermines the encyclopedia and its goals at a fundamental level. On the other hand, we aren't actually talking about the presence of an article but rather of what should go in what is a section on the mainpage to promote new content. Thus, it isn't the same as not allowing an article itself due to such issues. Moreover, even if this were not a group that had a history of bad drama associated with it, putting it on the mainpage will to people who are not familiar with it appear as overly navel gazing which undermines the point of DYK. Furthermore, given the non-encyclopedic nature of DYK we have more leeway in handling how such articles matters can be dealt with. Where that leaves us I don't know. I'd favor leaving it out but I don't think edit warring over the matter is a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My commentary and revert rationale is stated here. I'm somewhat in agreement with DragonflySixtyseven's rationale but frankly, this reason does not stand up to scrutiny whatsoever. I have other opinions on your actions right now, Ryan, but they're not germane to the substantive question here; whether it should be on the mainpage or not, and as I've already stated, it should probably not given that it's somewhat weakly self-referential - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of waiting until Raul promotes it to mainpage FA status, surely only a matter of time? RMHED (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree in pulling the info. It's a minor issue, and not worthy of the drama that's been created. I disagree with Ryan's way of handling this. SirFozzie (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind waiting for it to hit FA status, just to give readers a fresh, and well penned article. It's a shame that contributors don't spend time writing and improving upon the thousands of other more worthy articles, though. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Fozzie - there was a better way than pulling it down solo, and a better approach to discussing it with Alison (particularly given her personal history with WR and its sensitivity as a subject in general). On the other hand, it probably should not have made it to the main page. Avruch 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on - what exactly was wrong with my approach of discussing it with her? I agree, she's had a bad time there, but nowhere near all of her posts have been dealing with harassment against herself. She's got involved with the general banter as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on the fact that it wasn't necessary to remove it immediately without discussing it with anyone, and given Alison's history, I don't think that this: "Seriously Alison, you were the wrong person to do that. I think it's slightly unfair to the people who feel harassed from WR comments to glamourise it on our front page." was the most fully thought out comment you could have left. A better approach would have been to describe your concerns about the DYK in neutral terms in an attempt to convince her, rather than criticise her. Better still would have been to convince PeterSymonds. I agree on the substance, though - we don't need to give massive free advertising to a site like WR that is about us anyway, even if our article is extremely well written. Some things aren't right for the main page. Avruch 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article's already been featured on DYK for two hours, it has a DYK tag on the talk page, so whatever damage has already been done. If several editors object to keeping it up on DYK for the full 6+ hours due to moral or editorial concerns, why not allow for a little courtesy? If we are to have an article on WR, let's at least try to keep the attendant wikidrama to a minimum. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pont 1 - Ryan's removal, while well intended, was poorly handled and done for the wrong reasons. Point 2 - While the article itself meets the DYK criteria, I really don't think much of the hook. The hook indicates nothing particularly interesting to our average reader (as opposed to our average editor...). And a hook that is "interesting to draw in a variety of readers" (emphasis in original) is a criteria for DYK inclusion. So I think it is a poor enough DYK hook that replacing it with something else is a good idea. DragonflySixtyseven did so. Good enough for me. GRBerry 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- from a technical standpoint, the hook is poor enough that it shouldn't have even been on DYK in the first place. However, that said, DYK is not in a vacuum, no matter what we might like. We have chosen not to include certain hooks in the past (this comes to mind), and this should be no different. However, the manner that this was handled was really pretty poor. GlassCobra 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, do you really think the average DYK hook is at all interesting to nearly any reader? This sums it up pretty well (see the entry for "Did you know"). I have no comment on whether the WR hook should be on the main page, but "it's not interesting enough" is a pretty poor reason to keep it off. I note that it's already off the main page anyways, so no fuss. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Per GRBerry. Ryan surely knew better. Or does by now. But ya the hook wasn't the greatest. Happens. File it under "boner move, Ryan" and move on. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I have to agree with GRBerry on this one, it wasn't a very good hook. As to subject matter - well, no matter what goes onto the main page, there's a chance someone (editor or reader) is going to find it offensive or inappropriate; quality should be the deciding factor, with that in mind. Risker (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been removed as a "self reference", to do so indicates you have no idea what that policy about. It doesn't preclude ever mentioning Wikipedia, otherwise Wikipedia would be a redlink. It just precludes writing about Wikipedia-related stuff in violation of policies like WP:V, WP:N etc. Which wasn't done here, the rules were followed, it met the standards any other hook would. It should be re-added and people should read policy before citing it... like that will ever happen... --Rividian (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Should it be placed on Wikipedia:Recent additions (the DYK archive)? --NE2 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Neıl 龱 10:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of stalking and racism

Good hello, I hope this is the correct venue for this complaint. User:71.100.0.127, who has been editing for less than a month and whose contributions consist almost entirely of editing trivia into The Simpsons episode articles, has taken umbrage with the removal of his trivia and has been leaving edit summaries that violate WP:NPA.[34] He came to my talk page and asked why I was removing trivia[35]. I replied, with links to the appropriate policies and guidelines[36]. He accused me of vandalism and bullying[37]. I tried to make nice[38]. He called me a racist, a redneck, and accused me of stalking him[39]. I tried to make nice again[40]. I tried discussing on his talk page and he just blanks it[41]. Now he leaves this wherein he says I am proud of slavery[42]. What am I to do? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive looked at his edits and am wondering why you chose to follow him about? Although his edits are problematic they are clearly in good faith and I can see why he felt that you were stalking him. Plus I note that you used templates on his talk page quite a lot which always comes across badly as they usually include some kind of warning graphic. I'd advise you not to use templates except for simple and obvious vandalism. What to do now though? Since you have royally pissed him off I'd suggest you completely disengage for a while to give him a chance to calm down. If his edit are problematic let others deal with them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like sage advice, thank you. I must point out that I am not following him about, I have been editing The Simpsons articles since 2006, he has been editing them for just under a month but that is neither here nor there. I have no desire to interact with that user any further, he has proven himself incapable of adult conversation. The problem remains however, of his abusive edit summaries. Is there any way to rephrase or delete them or do I have live with baseless slander and insults wikilinked to my talk page via edit summary? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that edit summaries can be edited. They could be oversighted I suppose but I think that would be going beyond policy. The best thing to do, is simply ignore them as they tend to make him look bad rather than you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to help. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

Resolved

 – No administrator attention warranted. Also, a welcome message has been left. Beam 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On this very page he attacked me, calling me a "troll" which leaves me wondering what I did to deserve that. The issue hasn't even been about Wikipedia and my use of it. It has become a personal and he has threatened me because I am a hockey fan. Also, on his page he threatened vandals and doesn't even explain what a vandal is. I was called a vandal and if he is going to kill so-called "vandals" I feel extremely unsafe right now. Pesposito7 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reacting to a complaint logged on the Baseball project page. I probably jumped on it too soon, but a red-link who immediately gets into an edit-war tends to raise suspicions. Meanwhile, you need to do some reading in wikipedia's documentation about what constitutes verifiable sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the suspicions but for one thing it wasn't an edit war. And I admitted that I was wrong and apologized, then you reported me. Ignorance is a bliss. Now I'm being threatened with murder because of false accusations of being a "vandal" You should really get rid of that, it is intimidating. I think you abuse your WikiPowers, that's just my opinion. Pesposito7 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And my opinion is that Baseball Bugs's initial assessment is probably correct. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This gang mentality on Wikipedia is a bit disturbing, just because you guys are getting paid to do this. There is really no need for every Wikipedia bot or moderator on the site to attack me just because I'm a "red page" Once again I get that you guys are getting paid but it is not necessary. Especially when one of your own, Baseball Bug, is just picking and choosing who he doesn't like because of the color of their link and threatening them with murder. Pesposito7 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone is a jerk doesn't mean he should be banned. It's attitudes like that which ruin Wikipedia imo. Beam 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Paid? We get paid? Where's my cheque/check? – ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's at the top of the section, just to the left of the word "Resolved". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs acts with sarcasm and with a bit of a "LOL@YOU" attitude, and by a strict interpretation of WP:Civil he's uncivil. But guess what? Tough. Civility interpreted strictly is stupid. Sometimes someone is being an asshole, or is being an idiot. Saying so shouldn't be considered uncivil. Per WP:SPADE if it has an orange bill shaped mouth, if it waddles, if it's acting daffy, and if it quacks, 9 times out of 10 it's a duck. Beam 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• And just for the record, nobody here is getting paid... (or am I the only one not getting a check?) - auburnpilot talk 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo hands me an envelope under the table every month. Unfortunately, it's always empty... Resolute 00:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I started at a low wage - 0 dollars and 0 cents - but that's been doubled every payday. Meanwhile, I'm not sure where I threatened him with murder. Maybe that's in the same "Boston Globe article" he cited in support of Tulowitzki's "retirement". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment based on total ignorance of the circumstances -> The above conversation has a slightly more nasty tone than I like to see on this noticeboard. While I agree that the civility stick can be used to stifle debate, no matter how much of an arsehole some is, calling them one is rude. "Calling a spade a spade" is a phrase only used in real life to attempt to defend saying things lazily, impolitely, or to provoke. While Beam has expressed himself rather ineloquently, I'd point out that if you acceppt his "nine out of ten" statistics you're going to be horribly rude to a non-duck 10% of the time. - brenneman 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to use language like asshole to be rude. For instance, you're being a rude "spade" towards me. Eloquence isn't necessarily negated by using the term asshole, and who said anything about being rude to ducks? Do you abuse animals or something? Beam 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't call Aaron Brenneman a 'spade'. Such racist and bigoted language is patently UNCIVIL. /sarcasm. Baseball Bugs is blunt. So what? I've long argued that bluntness is NOT the same as incivility. It's reassuring to see that I'm not the only one who thinks such a thing. I've found Baseball Bugs to be stubborn and certainly not the most flexible of editors, but his 'bluntness level' stays fairly even, and rarely rockets upward into any sort of incivility. He may have to say more blunt thigns as thing escalate, but he's hardly a vitriolic and rampantly uncivil editor. ThuranX (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think Beam (or Brenneman, who also said it) meant "spade" in the racist form of the word. "To call a spade a spade" is an expression that is in reference to spades, or small shovels. -kotra (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hence ThuranX's text "/sarcasm". :) He was joking. That said, I'm always hesitant to use that expression because I am worried somebody will take it the wrong way, hahaha... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I must have missed that somehow. Nevermind! -kotra (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only time I recall that expression used literally was David Frye's dead-on impression of then-Alabama Governor George Wallace. Frye had Wallace giving a mocking speech about integration, using that expression as a double-meaning joke. Wallace himself never said it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Bugs is certainly rough around the edges sometimes and his use of humor is occasionally misplaced, but as far as I'm aware, he never threatened to kill you. His userpage merely says (in a somewhat graphic and probably humor-intended way) that Wikipedia does not tolerate vandals, which is true. See WP:V for a description of what Wikipedia considers vandalism. As for the "troll" comment, calling someone a troll can be considered a personal attack, and it seems now that it was incorrect anyway (i.e. you are probably not a troll). It was a somewhat overzealous accusation, and you both should have worked out the dispute between each other on your user talk pages instead of coming here. However, by itself I don't think one possible personal attack is enough requires administrator intervention. Also, this probably would have been more appropriate at Wikiquette Alerts, but as you are new, I wouldn't have expected you to know that. -kotra (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I probably posted too quickly and it was already wisely marked resolved, and then he started in here with a second thread. Meanwhile, someone has posted a "welcome" on his page which should help him toward being a better editor. So I recommend someone also mark this one "resolved" and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that my comments here, be they sarcastic or straight, are ultimately focused on making wikipedia the best product it can be, for the reading public. Google often finds wikipedia articles at the top of the list. So we have a continual responsibility to earn whatever trust the public has in the contents of our articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert spree by 72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs)

This editor edits exclusively in the articles related to politics and history of Former Yugoslavia. These articles are inherently highly controversial and, at times, consensus can be extremely diffucult to reach. I try to stay away from them as much as possible, only interfering when editing is clearly disruptive.

72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs) does not participate in any discussions related to article improvement, rather he simply reverts any change he disagrees with and labels them vandalism in the edit summary although the edits to which he refers are clearly not vandalism but a content dispute. Within the last 3 days, he made these reverts that he falsely labeled as vandalism: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Accusing others of vandalism in a content dispute, especially in articles of such controversy, can severely cripple any possibility of a consensus because it encourages confrontation rather than collaboration.

This editor has also removed text from an archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 29 on 3 ([55], [56], [57]) separate occasions within the last week citing nonsense and offensive message in the edit summary even though the archive contains the Do not edit disclaimer.

I left two carefully worded messages ([58], [59]) for this editor asking him politely to refrain from accusing others of vandalism as well as asking him not to edit an archived discussion. He removed both of those messages ([60], [61]) citing offensive message and incivility in the edit summary even though I made every attempt to not offend or insult him in those messages.

The editor is currently involved in an open SSP case over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245. Regardless of the outcome of the case, his editing is very disuptive and he is showing absolutely no attempt at collaboration. In addition to many, many issues that Yugoslavian articles face, a new set of lame edit wars is most definitely not needed.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be adding sources and has not violated 3RR, not even close. What exactly is the problem? Is this a POV issue? --Selket ^Talk 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my explanation of the issue but I said nothing of 3RR or POV. Sterile reverting of other people's edits with zero disussion as well as citing vandalism for every single edit with which you disagree is very disruptive in the process of achieving consensus in a set of articles that's highly controversial to begin with. I'm concerned about a new set of edit wars being started on articles that have been (semi)protected multiple times in the past due to this exact issue. A breach of 3RR is not a prerequisite for an edit war. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka banning me from Atropa Belladonna

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

---

Relevant discussion at

→ #Suggest a topic ban for Levine2112

For a long time, I've been arguing that there isn't very good sources for the prominence of homeopathy to atropa belladonna. There are megabytes worth of text to this effect, but recently User:Ludwigs2 arrived at the talkpage and argued that the use of this plant was just an extension of ancient cures of maladies. I pointed out that one cannot make the jump between ancient uses and the (relatively) modern development of homeopathy and he balked. Then I suggested that he was confusing homeopathy for naturopathy and he seemed amenable to changing the wording. I was happy for this and said so on Talk:Atropa belladonna. However, his change was a bit problematic. There is no such thing as a "naturopathic preparation" for one, and for two, the sources that were being used in the statement did not mention naturopathy at all. So today, I change the wording of that phrase slightly and removed the two sources which did not mention naturopathy. Then User:Elonka decided to ban me from the article and talkpage.

I ask you, was this right? I thought I was behaving very well. I'm also concerned that Elonka has banned User:Ronz from Talk:Quackwatch a few days before while not calling out User:Levine2112 for his disruption. I think there is a peculiar precedent being set here.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been edit-warring at this article, and just came off a block (his third block so far in July).[62] Then he went right back to the article and deleted multiple reliable sources[63] such as this one,[64], leaving a paragraph completely unsourced (and he then replaced the sources with a {{fact}} tag). It is my opinion that he could have reworded the paragraph, or requested a citation for a particular word, but just deleting every single source was not appropriate. The article is within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, where uninvolved administrators can place discretionary sanctions. Based on ScienceApologist's most recent action, plus other recent edit-warring and disruption, I placed a mild page ban of one week on him, for this one article. I recommend that ScienceApologist simply find something else to work on for a week, and then come back fresh. --Elonka 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; you tell us that you suggested changing the article wording from "homeopathy" to "naturopathy". Then you wanted to remove reliable sources because they say "homeopathy" instead of "naturopathy"?!?! The thing you should have done was to say, "Oops, I was wrong in suggesting the change away from homeopathy" and yourself changed the article text back to "homeopathy", as it read before you began the edit war over the section, because that text is supported by the references. What you did instead does not look at all reasonable. Combined with your prior edit warring, giving you some time off from this page is a good idea. Hence I have to say that Elonka is completely correct here. GRBerry 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Ludwigs suggested it. I merely am pointing out that the sources do not support this statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is at least slightly credible. Reviewing the talk page more closely, you suggested to Ludwigs that he was "confusing homeopathy with naturopathy which is a different subject." He replied "if that's the way you choose to look at it, then I can resolve this problem right now by changing the word 'homeopathic' to 'naturopathic' in the article. since homeopathy is a subset of naturopathy, that shouldn't be a issue, and your problem disappears." Then you said "Sounds good. Change away!" If you were going to disagree like this, that last should have been "no, no, homeopathy is not a subset of naturopathy" (though that article contradicts) or "well, but then we would need sources about naturopathy" instead of "Sounds good. Change away!"[65] You aren't helping yourself with this sort of behavior. I still see Elonka's action as reasonable. GRBerry 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I should have said something more in-depth about why Ludwigs is wrong. But now I cannot. [redacted] ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on with the redaction. I wanted to know where this totem pole for administrators is - and more specifically where I am on it... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just north of the administrators' tennis courts. Last time I checked, you hadn't been added yet. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, see how the edit warring continues:

[66]

No one cares.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read over the references and the article, user:ScienceApologist is correct in there removal. Yes, he should have written on the talk page, especially due to the edit warring block he received. However, I do feel that this page ban is an overreaction. In future I would urge SA to be more engaging on the talk page after (or before) he removes references in this manner. In addition, based upon the comments above, one cannot help but feel that there is a certain amount of friction between SA and at least one of the admins involved. Mayhap another could mediate? Mark t young (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I likewise find a page ban to be excessive. Frankly, I find the entire push by the homeopaths to get SA thrown off Wikipedia, which rolls forward each and every day nonstop, to be problematic. The games, the wikilawyering, the bait and switch tactics... the list goes on and on and on. We really need to get this shit to stop. Are there places on wikipedia for Homeopathy? sure. However, this idea that since anything, within the rules of homeopathy, can be reduced to an 'essential' idea, allows Homeopaths to claim everything under the 'botany' umbrella counts, we're up against what is little different than seeing some extremist religious nut run through the entire project and tag anyone and anything a sin or sinner for crossing his worldview. From within, it all looks right ,from a neutral standard, it's not right. ThuranX (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Articles on Botany should not be polluted with fringe views. Articles about fringe views can explain them, and there could be a list of homeopathic preparations indicating what each plant is used for, but this content should not be in the plant articles themselves. Otherwise, every tiny view could run amok through the encyclopedia tagging whatever topics they liked with their fringe content. Elonka's action here is harmful to the encyclopedia and should be reversed. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...there could be a list of homeopathic preparations indicating what each plant is used for, but this content should not be in the plant articles themselves. A list like this one? — Scientizzle 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jan Scholten, whoever that is, has apparently conducted homeopathic provings on the lanthanides. Should every element in the periodic table contain information on its homeopathic uses? Botanists may stand for this, but I doubt chemists will... Skinwalker (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a neutral party (I edited the nightshade page solely because of this thread), I think it may be warranted for SA to not edit the page - he's in perennial dispute, even breaking 3RR at one point. While I agree that the article should be botany first and foremost, edit warring is not the way to do it. At the same time, lack of sanctions against Ludwigs doesn't excuse behaviour either. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Weren't there just a handful of threads about Ludwigs2's conduct? I even recall commenting in at least one recent thread he's been in. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because he's civil, while somebody else isn't (apparently, or is that 3RR, or removing sources....or what exactly because the real reasons don't agree with the actual reasons supplied for blocking...). It's business as usual over in woo-land, the civil POV pusher will win everytime, especially while SA is there to allow admins to focus on unCIVILness :-( Shot info (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: We may not be scientifically accurate, but at least we're friendly. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I share ThuranX and Jehochman's concern over these page bans. Though I have admired Elonka's work in the past, I find her recent administrative actions in altmed/homeopathy areas to be very questionable. Surely someone who ferreted out PHG's abuse can see how pro-pseudoscience editors misuse and misrepresent sources. This misrepresentation and tendentiousness is highly damaging to the encyclopedia, arguably more damaging than calling these tendentious editors to task for their behavior.

On a different point, I question whether Elonka is uninvolved, and I believe she is obviously taking sides. In recent days she has edited the main homeopathy article,[67] and started pages on highly obscure altmed journals with low impact factors.[68] It is a favorite tactic of pro-altmed POV pushers to fluff up the importance of the places where their non-blind, uncontrolled studies are published, and I worry that having articles on these non-notable journals will cause further tendentiousness. Also, she has banned Ronz from editing the Quackwatch page under the auspices of the homeopathy decision,[69] which stretches even the "broadly interpreted" clause of the discretionary sanctions. The homeopathy decision applied only to homeopathy-related articles, not altmed articles in general. Why have Ludwigs2 and Levine2112, both of whom are currently gaming 3RR and tag-team reverting, not subject to page restrictions as well? These page bans on SA and Ronz should be overturned and policing of these articles should be handed over to more neutral admins. Skinwalker (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly an apologist for homeopathy, and I've seen Elonka having a remarkably good effect on articles marred by constant edit-warring. A week long ban from one article is hardly excessive, or even remarkable, and I fail to see why this lengthy discussion is required. The only issue here is behavior, not content, and if other editors have issues with the article content, let them repair to the article Talk: page post-haste, where they can make their points and achieve consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First, as to QuackWatch being covered by the Homeopathy arbcase, which says "homeopathy, broadly interpreted"...Since the last sentence in the lead to QuackWatch is "The –site has also been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine supporters.", I'd have to say yes, that QuackWatch is covered by the ruling. Second, the content dispute herein is separate from the topic ban made on SA by Elonka, eventhough they involve the same group of people. As to the topic ban, I have to pretty much agree with User:GRBerry's 18:16, 7 July 2008 posting and User:Sceptre. Basically, SA returned from a block and began edit warring. I agree the article should primarily be on botany, but edit warring is not the way to go about it and lack of action, right on wrong, on another editor does not make edit warring excusable. I find User:Elonka's action reasonable. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally in that Quackwatch falls under the Homeopathy Arbcom case restrictions. Rlevse, notice that the ban is "any homeopathy-related articles or talkpages", not just that one article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Sorry if I was confusing, many articles fall under Homeopathy. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we here, the Arbcom permitted discretionary sanctions in their field, Elonka enforced one, end of story, I don't see what this thread's aim is, since it certainly can't be to overturn an arbitration enforcement, being that we have pages and processes dedicated to that. Its a temporary ban and its at one article, we have 2.5 million articles, what makes this one so special that the parties cannot take a step back and cool down for a week? MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a legitimate concern. An editor above has expressed concerns that Elonka has been editing homeopathy and thus may be too involved to serve as a neutral administrator. I would like to hear Elonka's response to that allegation before this thread closes. Jehochman ^Talk 02:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Because, if you would read this thread, you might notice that there are those who feel Elonka's action was heavy-handed and rather un-called for. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna has a history of traditional, alternative, and homeopathic uses and studies (search belladonna and belladonna homeopathy on PubMed). Look at the talk page and article histories and you will notice that SA has been removing all material and compromises trying to document this from RS's, resulting in edit warring and stagnation of the article. Look at the improvement to the article today after telling SA to stop editing Atropa belladonna for a bit. Coincidence? I do not think so. There appears to be no hint of hoards of rabidly biased editors intent on taking over the article either. I support Elonka's response. Ward20 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My point being that if SA really wanted to challenge the topic ban, we have an enforcement page, a clarification page, and a mailing list # arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org to which to appeal topic bans, I see this as a forum shopping endeavor at the moment. MBisanz ^talk 08:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only one question here: is The Oxford Book of Health Foods [70] a reliable source? I think the answer is yes. Is there a good reason to remove it? No. So removing it is disruptive, which is what SA and some others (Cacycle, ect.) have been doing, followed up with edit-warring. Unfortunately, it appears here that many people have not looked at the source and action, and are preferring to comment on the user ("SA is being unfairly attacked, Elonka is no uninvolved, ect".) These are not that relevant to the issue. SA has been pushing the limits lately with actions like this, and subsequent edit-warring, which is likely why he's been facing perhaps more criticism than usual. II 03:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have removed exactly that source without being aware about this thread. I have explained my reasons on the article's talk page: one of the cited references does not even mention any of the stated symptoms, the other one is a twelve-sentence "chapter" in a very general and completely unreferenced book. I would not object to mention the plant's use in homeopathy if it is an exceptionally notable preparation and it should be easy to find reliable sources for that if so (the exceptionally notable part is important as in homeopathy anything, including every plants, all chemicals, or even physical effects, can, have, or could be used for their preparations.

In summary, what SA has repeatedly removed (and what was repeatedly re-added by Ludwigs2 and Levine2112), was definitely NOT valuable sources, it was one misleading and one totally unreliable source. I now understand that the situation is a bit heated, but we should not discard normal Wikipedia standards for articles just because of that. Cacycle (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that Elonka is enjoying flexing her new found powers against any and all editors that are not supportive of the altmed argument, regardless of the content discussion on the relevant article's talk page [71]. Shot info (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, Rlevse and Mbisanz have summed up my view on this too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

She made one edit to homeopathy, that I can find. That's a really thin sheet to hang an "involved" claim on. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first...but now I think there might be cause for concern outside of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka said, "ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), was page-banned from the article earlier today,"[72] in threat to another good faith editor, who commented above. The source in question is [arguably] not appropriate for a natural science article, but here's Elonka threatening editors who have removed [what they view as] an inappropriate source. That's not acceptable. If something is debatable, a user should not be threatened with a block or ban. (Obviously, edit warring is a different matter, but I see no diffs to suggest that this editor was edit warring). Jehochman ^Talk 10:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC) [added] at 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned she's declaring a source reliable, as if sources are placed on the page at her discretion. While content and conduct are linked in some ways (like BLP vios), I'm not comfortable with the mingling of issues here. And if there's no sign of edit-warring, then there are clearly some issues here with Elonka putting on her admin hat in this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I do not understand why the article Atropa belladonna (as opposed to single editors) is under the scope of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy as stated by Elonka on my talk page. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why articles rather than editors - because in the long run remedies addressing the topic of long term dispute are also useful to address new accounts without going through another full ArbComm case. Why this article - because before SA showed up and started this edit war over reference to homeopathy back in January, the article had said the plant was used in homeopathy for more than a year and a half (e.g. July 2007 [73] January 2007 [74], July 2006 [75]). The mention of homeopathy was first added [76] in February 2006 by a user who is quite obviously not a homeopathy pushing SPA. GRBerry 14:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Jehochman, I am concerned by Elonka's threats against other editors. Further, Cacycle's assessment of the sources in question is pretty clear and well thought out. As to his question about articles not people, some Arbcom decisions go to people ,regarding their behavior and editing patterns across the project. Other decisions relate to how consensus has been formed to handle certain hot topics, and thus apply to all editors seeking to push some POV or other which has been seen in numerous articles which relate to a given topic. Similar 'article/topic' based decisions exist for hot topics like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the "Troubles", and so on. ThuranX (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it took quite a few minutes to wade through all the junk and tangential issues that have been tossed into this poor thread, but I'll take a stab at commenting. It looks to me like SA was edit warring on an article (regardless of whether or not his was the "right version"), was recently blocked for this and finally given a very short ban from the article. This appears to be in line with the sanctions allowed by the Arb case and I don't see any evidence that would make Elonka an involved editor or otherwise ineligible to make this call. It looks like a lot of the discussion here belongs on the talk page of the article to help figure out the content issue there.

That said, a more general comment on the other junk that's been tossed on here: The issues with Homeopathy and other related junk aren't ever going to be solved until both sides can figure out how to behave. For example, making exaggerated claims about Elonka's involvement and claiming she's making threats or calling a standard Oxford text by a well respected botanist junk doesn't do anything to help your case and is going to make uninvolved admin's think twice about the validity of your other claims. Take the rhetoric back a few notches and deal with this civilly and you're more likely to be able to point out the cranks for who they are. Shell ^babelfish 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice way to dismiss all editors who didn't just fall into line with Elonka, Shell. All that 'junk and tangential issues' are all relevant, and not junk, and not tangential. People are concerned by Elonka's behavior, and by a growing presence of editors who want to see a precipitous and ridiculous accrediting of Homeopathy in any and articles. SA pushes back against that, and invariably gets ramped up into incivility and such. Then his opposition runs here. I honestly do not know whether these are actively coordinated actions, or simple coincidence, or in between, where enough editors have seen what works to keep SA occupied while they push their agendas. I notice that no one here has spoken to Cacycle's assessment of the sources in question, one which seems to thoroughly discredit them. Instead, in the name of 'narrow focus', we keep hearing 'dogpile on SA'. No. Dogpile on the fringe, please. ThuranX (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was not dismissing any editors, but instead dismissing the reliable sources and article content discussions since they're not really appropriate here, (nor is this board really the place to talk about Arb sanctions either, but that's at least not such a stretch). Your attempt to paint my discussion as dismissive and a pile-on is exactly the behavior I was addressing when I said that you're seriously weakening the ability of uninvolved admin's to believe your claims. Stop with the hyperbole and rhetoric and your points will be taken more seriously. If you think Elonka (or anyone else really) is getting the wrong idea about what's going on in these disputes, try hitting their talk page and calmly explaining things (with diffs preferably).

As I said, I agree that behavior on both sides is terrible at this point and is going to require a lot of continued work to fix. I made a suggestion about how better to do that since you (and others) claim that one side is responsible for goading the other into all this problematic behavior - make a concerted effort not to respond to the goading for a bit and see how much easier it is to point to their behavior as inappropriate. Or maybe put together some specific points on editors you're most concerned with and request that the ArbCom sanctions be applied to them. Or explain your concerns over an article to an uninvolved editor and let them wade in for a bit while you get a break from the nonsense. No matter what direction its approached from, it is going to be a lot of work to deal with, but whatever you do, don't wait till things blow up and then starting pointing fingers without some pretty clear evidence.

Oh, its completely off topic, but Cacyle's assessment of a Oxford Press book by a famous botanist isn't exactly what I'd call spot-on; you guys might want to take a look at that book (or the later 2006 edition really) because it actually deals with science and debunks a lot of homeopathic and naturopathic claims, but again, shouldn't that be a discussion for the article talk page or reliable sources board? I'm not sure how its being used in the article or what it suppose to support, but calling the source itself junk is an incredible stretch. Honestly though, if this is just in this thread to say "yes, someone edit warred, but they were right^TM, please count me out. Shell ^babelfish 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side... the article itself actually looks quite reasonable in its current state. It mentions alternative medical uses of belladonna, including its use in homeopathy, succinctly with reasonable refs, and includes the statement that there is no evidence of its safety or efficacy. The section is reasonably sized and not overly polemical, as far as I can tell. That's encouraging, right?

I think Shell Kinney has a valid point about baiting. It takes place, yes, and it's bad. But there's only one way to fix that problem: don't take the bait. If you take the bait and respond with edit-warring or incivility, then Ye Olde Uninvolved Admin is not going to see it as black-and-white - they're going to see a bilateral mess. Right or wrong, them's the facts. I won't get into what an awful idea civility parole is in general, and what a negative impact SA's civility parole in particular has had on the community - that's for another time.

As a meta-note, I am a little tired of the constant insertion of "According to the National Institutes of Health..." before every statement of accepted medical fact. Does Brittanica feel the need to use ridiculous contrivances like: "According to the NIH, the CDC, and the World Health Organization, HIV is the cause of AIDS"? Then why do we? But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're just here to line by line support Elonka's behavior. Got it. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to some of the above questions: No, I am not involved in this topic area. I made one edit to Homeopathy a few days ago, to add a link. That does not make me an "involved" editor. See WP:UNINVOLVED. I have no opinion on whether homeopathy or naturopathy or alternative medicine should or shouldn't be in the Atropa belladonna article. I do think that ScienceApologist's actions were disruptive. He had been blocked three times already in one week. Then when off the latest block, he went right back to the same article, the same paragraph, and deleted reliable sources. I therefore opted to ask him to take a time out, and avoid the article for a week. If anyone has opinions on whether the sources were or weren't reliable, please bring them up at Talk:Atropa belladonna, because debating the details of a source is not relevant for ANI. Here at the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard, we are here to discuss things that need urgent administrator attention. ScienceApologist came here to protest the ban. I placed the ban because I felt that ScienceApologist's presence at the article had become disruptive, that he was spending toooooooo much time there, edit-warring too much and reacting to nearly every change. ArbCom has authorized uninvolved administrators to place discretionary sanctions, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, and that's exactly what I did. It was an appropriate action, to ask an edit-warring editor to stay away from the article where he had been warring, just for a few days. This was not a grand statement about whether or not I am for or against science or alternative medicine or anything like that. To be clear: I don't care. What I do care about is longrunning disputes, identifying reasons for disruption, and applying course corrections to certain articles, to see if I can break the pattern and get them out of their vicious cycles of edit-warring, while still keeping them in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I've had a lot of success with this in other topic areas, though I'll freely admit that I haven't done much in the topic area of alternative healthcare. But that's a good thing, because that means I'm uninvolved, and having a neutral and uninvolved administrator is one of the key things that can help calm a nasty dispute. So I'd appreciate if everyone that's reacting here and attacking my character and methods, would just take a deep breath and Chill Out. I am not going to take actions to "ruin the project". I'm here to help. Now please, give me a chance. If I get out of line, okay, I'm sure you'll let me know. But I see a lot of people here reacting as though I'm some kind of rogue admin here, because I dared to ask one (1) editor to stay away from one (1) article for one (1) week. I took a proper, appropriate, and measured action, I acted in the best interest of the project, and the article has improved dramatically since my involvement. Having this long angst-filled ANI thread is way out of proportion to what I did. Now, can we please go spend time on things that are a bit more important, than a one-week one-article ban, on one edit-warring editor? --Elonka 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I for one am satisfied with your explanation. Please keep the various concerns in mind. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I seem to have a prominent place in this discussion (unbeknownst to myself until now), let me add that this entire long-winded squabble could have been avoided if ScienceApologist had approached me and the article with good faith and open discussion. I'm not going to object to his focus on removing references to alternative medical use in the article (even though it strikes me as unbelievably myopic) - that's a content dispute that could easily be handled through normal editing practices. but his constant practice of deleting and reverting without discussion, and his generally dictatorial stance when he does bother to communicate, makes normal editing all but impossible when he's involved. I think he would do well to stop complaining about the people who take action against him, and start reflecting on his own editing style, and how he can improve it. --Ludwigs2 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like normal, the CIVIL-police only leap into action at certain times - and for certain editors - in certain articles... Shot info (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This ScienceApologist dude sure is interesting. Tan | 39 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

damn it. That's disappointing. I can't defend that in any way or form, and would support a significant block to prevent SA from interfering with this AN/I report. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Shot info came to my page to ask me to explain/defend my above comment. I find that SA is interfering with this AN/I report by removing the input of another editor, who is not specifically issuing scathign personal attacks. I don't at all like the tone of Ludwigs2's comment, I think there are tons better ways to handle this, Ludwigs2's comment fails miserably to really get to the big issue here, but to remove it, instead of letting the guy's words speak for himself, isn't respectable, or excusable. SA really should have posted a response. I certainly support him in the main issues here, that adding Homeopathy across the project is bad, that stuff at Belladonna heeds careful work before adding it, and so on. I won't support the blanking at AN/I that isn't thoroughly justifiable. This is not such a case. ThuranX (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX (and anyone else) - in all seriousness, I'd like some guidance on how I could have presented that statement in a better way. I really had no intention of defaming SA, or even of being mean to him; I was just trying to point out what strike me as obvious and easily documented flaws in his editorial style. I mean, how many diffs would you like, just from his interactions with me? I'll grant that I have a history with SA, and so maybe my tone could have been a little milder, but not much milder (short of refraining from saying anything at all...). Tell me how I could have pointed out to him what I saw (and see) as a weakness in his editorial style and practices, so that he will accept and consider the criticism. that's all I want out of this. --Ludwigs2 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) forgot edit summary

I find this disingenuous naivety irritating, to be polite. You're well aware of your tone; esp. since you've been up here at AN/I for your attitude and behavior. ThuranX (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that was actually an answer to my question, Thuran... --Ludwigs2 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I don't think you understand the concern here. Your action on ScienceApologist was appropriate - that's not the problem.

THIS is the problem. The discussion of content here would not have been relevant, but you've made it relevant. You have no authority over content (unlike what the message would suggest to the editor) - please ensure you confine yourself to cover conduct issues when giving a link to the decision in the future. A simple message like "Please be aware that the Atropa Belladonna article has been subject to a great deal of edit-warring recently, especially about that particular paragraph which you have edited. Please be aware that the article is within the scope of the ArbCom Homeopathy case. As such, uninvolved administrators have the right to impose discretionary sanctions on the article or the editors who are working on it. In fact another editor, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), was page-banned from the article earlier today. It is preferrable to change text, rather than just deleting it - sources. Could you please give a more detailed explanation as to your reasoning for deleting those sources, at the talkpage? Thanks, - Elonka" would have been more appropriate. I'm concerned you fail to acknowledge the issue there. But if you can understand that, then we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that administrators can't assert that a source is reliable strikes me as strange. Could you point me to this policy? Wherever it is, I have a feeling that I oppose it already. II | (t - c) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Elonka claims above to be uninvolved. If so, is she really qualified to figure out the subtleties often seen in evaluating a source about homeopathy and belladonna as actually reliable, or simply having a veneer of reliability? If she is, then she's hardly uninvolved, if she's not, then she shouldn't have made the determination that a source which is in serious conflict is or isn't a genuinely reliable source. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're stating that one has to be "involved" in a dispute in order to tell what is reliable or what is not. I don't see the logic there. In fact our RS/N actively disputes that logic; often the most reliable judge of what is reliable or not is the uninvolved party. Here's a hint: if a book has "Oxford" in the title, it is probably reliable. At the least, it deserves a talkpage discussion, or at least an intelligible edit summary, before removal. What's most striking is that it wasn't making favorable claims about atropa belladona -- it was simply stating that it is used in homeopathic remedies. Why SA would feel so threatened by these facts boggles my mind, but then, it does not surprise me. II | (t - c) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No that's not it. Administrators are there to deal with conduct - not to make decisions on content. Consensus is changing, and if there is an objection to an edit a new editor to the page has made, then the editor should be asked to discuss it further. But insisting a source is reliable in the absence of that, particularly while acting in the capacity of an administrator (as opposed to an editor) gives the impression that administrators get to make content decisions - they strictly do not, and this has been confirmed by ArbCom enough times already. It's a matter of general principle - it's not affected by the initial appropriate topic ban on ScienceApologist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you sure sure that they can be separated? Deleting obviously unreliable sources without much discussion is not miscondunct. I contend, however, that deleting reliable sources without discussion is misconduct. Content and conduct are inseparable. II | (t - c) 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're imperfectly informed; content and conduct are separable.

“ The Arbitration Committee is looking for a way to address the issue in a broader way that does not tamper with the idea that administrators DO NOT make content decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ”

Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For SA, a source is reliable if it conforms with his view of the "truth." Anthon01 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is the second time that Elonka's use of discretionary sanctions has been questioned. I'd say that she might want to review her approach. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am continually reviewing my approach; however, just because discretionary sanctions are questioned, doesn't mean they're wrong. It's similar to blocks: Editors who are blocked, routinely question the blocking admin. Same with bans: Whoever is banned is probably going to immediately question it, and especially because they're banned and not blocked, that gives them the freedom to make a bigger deal out of it (such as this ANI thread, or a recent Arb Enforcement challenge where another of my bans was formally challenged.[77]). It is also routine for banned or blocked editors (or their friends) to make accusations of "involved admin!", "bias!", "didn't do anything bannable!", "picking on me and not on other people!" etc. And of course anyone else who has ever been banned, blocked, or cautioned by the admin[78] may wander in to throw in their own complaints. But most genuinely neutral observers will be able to tell who's who, and see the truth of the matter. --Elonka 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Mattihorn

Resolved

 – User blocked by Lifebaka for 24 hours. Beam 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks. See [79] and [80] for warnings. Editing has been extremely disruptive and many civil attempts have been made to discourage the user from his contempt towards Wikipedia. His actions have resulted in User_talk:Sister Endorphina from leaving Wikipedia. Also claims to be guilty of sockpuppetry, which I believe to be true. -Rushyo (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours, drop me a line if he comes back and starts doing it again. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat and UKPhoenix79

There is a problem with (mostly) two editors reverting each other at Great power. Two article protections hasn't been able to stop them. Neither did my notification of yesterday that: "No matter who is right and who is wrong, the edit warring has to stop. If it happens again I will report all involved users at WP:3RR or WP:ANI."

Article: Great power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved editors

• Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs)
• UKPhoenix79 (talk · contribs)

List of reverting edits

• 07:48, 28 June 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 11:52, 28 June 2008 UKPhoenix79
• 18:15, 28 June 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 21:14, 28 June 2008 UKPhoenix79
• 22:57, 28 June 2008 Article protected by Philip Baird Shearer until 30 June 2008
• 05:11, 2 July 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 06:30, 2 July 2008 UKPhoenix79
• 15:46, 4 July 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 23:19, 4 July 2008 Colliver55
• 05:55, 5 July 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 06:41, 5 July 2008 UKPhoenix79
• 10:59, 5 July 2008 Article protection by Luna Santin until 8 July 2008
• 00:01, 7 July 2008 My notification that futher edit warring will be reported
• 18:12, 8 July 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 02:20, 9 July 2008 UKPhoenix79
• 06:40, 9 July 2008 Chanakyathegreat
• 07:26, 9 July 2008 UKPhoenix79
• 07:28, 9 July 2008 Article protection by Luna Santin until 23 July 2008

Articles shouldn't have to be protected all the time because two editors editwar in a content dispute. I request that Chanakyathegreat and UKPhoenix79 are prevented from editing Great power for some time. Both are long time and good editors that know not to editwar. =Species8473= ^(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronic protection is more harmful than blocking recalcitrant edit warriors. If two people are unable to help themselves from going at it, the community doesn't lose the right to edit the page they're engaged in combat over, they lose the right to edit everything. Both Chanakyathegreat and UKPhoenix79 have been blocked for edit warring before and are thus suffiently encultured to know that this is untoward behavior; they should be told firmly that they are at risk of being sanctioned without warning should this continue. (06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) update: I've unprotected the article with Luna Santin's permission.) east.718 at 06:35, July 9, 2008

I would like you to check my record, I have been a good editor and the previous block happened due to my involvement with a sockpuppet. I believed that it was Simple and obvious vandalism due to the unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material but I understood why I was blocked for breaking 3RR on that occasion. I have also worked long and hard on the talk page to come to some reasonable conclusion to this and I have asked for help all over wikipedia. All to naught. If this can get some attention to the situation then I am all for this. Please can someone help! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The tiny section being lamely warred over is whether Brazil and / or India might possibly be maybe considered to perhaps be "Great Powers" in the future. The section is nothing but speculation and synthesis, anyway, so I have simply removed it. Neıl 龱 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good move, Neil.  Sandstein  14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I hope Chanakya agrees. And yes I've known this was lame for a while thats why I kept on asking for help... and probably why no one was interested :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user calling editor BAD THINGS

User:72.146.77.244 see [81] & [82]. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked.-Wafulz (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks as though he is the user using multiple IPs to edit war on Whiskey in the Jar from what he put on RepublicanJacobite's talk page. Trying to avoid 3RR I presume. (how do you stop someone from avoiding 3RR that way)? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He left out "unsanitary". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a self-contradicting insult... Expect for This guy, how many republicans like masturbation or gays? ThuranX (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just the guy I had in mind. Including the "unsanitary" part. Which you would understand if you've ever been in an airport restroom. Eek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Contact the Log Cabin Republicans to find out. An interesting group of folk. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm still wondering how the Netherlands seawall figures into this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny Peiser coatracking, off-wiki media coverage

• Benny Peiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Problem with a BLP that is getting play in media sites off-wiki.[83][84][85] Apparently the article subject has objected to a characterization in the article - a journalist friend seemingly tried to change the article on his behalf[86] and his edit was reverted.[87] Looking at the article, it seems to be mostly a coatrack for some global warming argument or controversy. Frankly, this situation reminds me of Rosalind Picard. Kelly ^hi! 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're associated with the Cabal you can't have your own article edited as you see fit. Beam 19:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a few days, to prevent further vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing

I'm accusing User:Scjessey of gaming the system in order to promote his own point of view at the expense of Wikipedia, of lying in order to do it, of allowing another editor to get blocked, in part for an alleged BLP violation when Scjessey knew no violation existed. Consider me an involved editor because the victim here, User:WorkerBee74, while not someone I have a load of sympathy with, does support roughly the same things I do on the Barack Obama page and the editor I view as the culprit here is on the other side. This is several days old, but it took me a while to dig up the old edits that are important to understanding the situation.

User:WorkerBee74 was recently blocked, a move I support. But WorkerBee74's previous block came after an edit war with User:Scjessey which is very troubling. On the George Stephanopoulos page, Scjessey reverted WorkerBee74's cited, verifiable assertion that unrepentant former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers has been a supporter of Obama, despite the verifiable fact that Scjessey knew about Ayers support, and when WorkerBee74 reverted Scjessey's tendentious edits not more than three times, WorkerBee74 was reported [88] to WP:3RRN and blocked for three days [89]. The blocking admin made it clear the BLP concern was important, and Scjessey said nothing, despite knowing (1) that adequate sourcing [[90] was in WorkerBee74's edit and (2) other adequate sourcing existed. (I googled these sources within minutes: [91] and [92] and there are many, many more). It is not possible, after weeks of Scjessey being in the thick of the arguments on the Talk:Barack Obama page about the Obama/Ayers association in May and early June that by July 1 Scjessey would have forgotten about it. And yet he reverted WB74's cited information (a Washington Post piece which mentioned a $200 Ayers contribution to Obama, which included a link to the State of Illinois website that proved it).

When Scjessey reverted, his edit summary stated A $200 campaign donation is not "support". Nor does the reference say so. But a donation constitutes support by any reasonable definition, as WB74's edit summary to his revert stated [93], and if someone disagrees with that obvious, commonsense conclusion, they have no right to object on specious BLP-policy grounds when they already know that Ayers supported Obama from other sources. Just look at what Scjessey said again diff and again [94] (to understand the importance of that last comment, it must be seen in light of the comment it replied to -- one of a series of messy diffs showing the posting) and again [95] (in response to this edit [[96] posting this source [97], which makes it clear Scjessey was referring to a post which linked to yet another source showing Ayers' support) on the Obama talk page. How could he possibly believe by July 1 that Ayers was not a former supporter?. User:Brothejr, who reported WB74, also indicated he knew about Ayers' support because Brothejr participated in the same discussions, during which he made this revealing comment [98] that he'd read up on Ayers. Scjessey could not have forgotten the fact of Ayers' support, given his deep participation in the Obama talk page discussion about the Obama-Ayers connection, I can't say the same for Brothejr and I haven't asked him what he remembered recently. I did ask Scjessey, who told me he saw nothing wrong with his actions. [99], (his previous comments here: [100], [101])

WB74, in his request to get the block removed, actually mentioned that he did post on the talk page about it [102] and made a pretty good case that his edits were supported by the facts [103] and [104]. He pointed out that the Washington Post source clearly supported the idea that Ayers was a supporter. But whether or not WB74's block would have happened or not (or even whether it should or should not have happened) is beside the point -- the actions of these editors were just as wrong either way. (PhilKnight rejected WB74's block appeal [105] and responded to my concerns on his talk page [106] [107], saying the BLP problem was not decisive. I don't find his reasons cogent, but that's beside the point of my post)

Ask yourself what the spirit of WP:BLP is -- to protect subjects from unfair statements in Wikipedia and to protect Wikipedia's reputation and legal position -- and it becomes clear that Scjessey did not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, particularly by the last edit. It is clear he was using that policy to club a fellow editor who was ultimately following it. It is also clear that he will hide the truth in order to advance his own nonencyclopedic interests (whether those interests are to advance his POV or to harm WorkerBee74 or both is something the rest of us don't have to decide). I consider that last charge to be extremely serious, and I don't see any other possible interpretation.

Scjessey's editing was gaming the system and to have allowed WorkerBee74 to have been blocked largely for WP:BLP concerns and said nothing was also passively gaming the system (Scjessey certainly saw WorkerBee74's 3RR report, because a similar one filed against Scjessey appeared not far below it on the same WP:3RRN page [108] -- Scjessey argued that his violations were for removing poorly sourced BLP material under WP:GRAPEVINE which is not a defense when he was well aware that the material was adequately sourced and he knew there were thousands more sources; the 3RR admin, unfortunately, was suckered in). If some administrators watch the Talk:Barack Obama page regularly they will get a very good idea about where various editors are coming from, they will understand which editors are likely to game the system and get a very good understanding of why they are doing it. Scjessey's conduct hurt the encyclopedia, caused disruption, all with the obvious intent of pushing a POV, and his actions allowed misinformation to get another editor into a block. I normally don't feel I have enough experience with behavior-related administrative actions to suggest a remedy, but it seems to me (and keep in mind my involvement) this editor should be topic banned from all Barack Obama-related material in the encyclopedia, for the good of the encyclopedia and its editors, and whatever administrators do, I strongly suggest they watch this editor very carefully. If Scjessey had been under watch before this incident happened, he could have been caught before WorkerBee74 was given that block. Note that WorkerBee74's current one-week block appears to be partly based on his having that past block. Noroton (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey didn't place the block, right? I'm not seeing a problem, on first blush, with removing links between Ayers and Obama from articles about Stephanopoulos. The Ayers-Obama link is the source of many disputes and edit wars on Barack Obama - why is Scjessey different to the extent that he needs a topic ban? It appears to be a different instance of the same old content dispute, unleavened in this case with obvious conduct issues. BLP also includes not according undue weight to criticism, sourced or not, and in this case including the Ayers link in only tangentially related articles could arguably cross that line. Noroton, perhaps what you've written above is more suited as the core of an RfC rather than a report to AN/I? Avruch 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the edit shouldn't have been reverted for other reasons: There may well be reasons, for instance, WP:WEIGHT, to remove it. I'm saying an editor lied. I'm holding him to the reasons he stated, not any possible reasons he could have also used. The problem extended to misuse of WP:3RRN. This was a single incident but it involves editors at the Talk:Barack Obama page (this must be the eighth or ninth complaint filed at AN/I stemming from the Obama page). This seems to be the proper venue. Noroton (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To further respond to your comment, Avruch: why is Scjessey different to the extent that he needs a topic ban? Because the kind of behavior I've shown Scjessey will do is particularly unhelpful on a talk page that has had such a difficult time in maintaining civility and constructive consensus building. He has violated 3RR before, and it's reasonable to conclude that his conflict with WorkerBee74 helped lead to that editor's further misconduct, partly on that page. It would be best for that page and for Wikipedia to ban him from Obama-related edits. He can't be trusted with them. Noroton (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I will admit to an off-the-bat distaste for accounts which are here solely to pursue partisan (pro- or con-) talking points about a specific political candidate. It's a simple, straightforward abuse of Wikipedia. Workerbee74 falls into this category; for that matter, Scjessey has edited little besides Obama-related articles for quite some time now. They could both stand to get out more and edit in some other areas. My experience is that Noroton's judgement is pretty good on these issues. There are too many partisan editors of all stripes active on Obama-related pages. I'd like some additional uninvolved input on Noroton's post here. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Noroton's judgment is generally very sound, I think what I at least would like to see is a bit more evidence of disruptive activity than what has been the main focus so far (namely, the BLP revert that may not have been motivated by a regard for BLP per se). Avruch 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Noroton appears to be bitter about the way a session of consensus-building has turned out, so he has retaliated by filing this dubious report (with a misleading section title) against his most vocal "opponent". His "lying" complaint seems to stem from my removal of a WP:BLP violation (used a conservative blog as a "reliable source") that happened almost 2 weeks ago. MastCell mentions that I have been focused on Barack Obama for a while. Is there something wrong with that? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Scjessey, I had this written up late last night, before the most recent developments on that Obama page, and I've said repeatedly above that I disagree with you on that page. The final edit you reverted was to a Washington Post article, not a blog. The proof is that you knew WorkerBee74's edit was factual and the sourcing he provided at the end was reliable. You're too caught up in your POV, and editors and the encyclopedia are hurt as a result. I think it's very important for administrators considering this to go through the diffs, particularly the diffs from late May and early June. Noroton (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - So you are saying that you have been planning to file this report for almost 2 weeks? And presumably you have been gathering evidence of my evildoing in the meantime? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, considering it, then laboriously going through the history pages on the Obama talk page and looking through the archives to try to get the context. Always in the back of my mind I wondered if you could have just forgotten the Obama-Ayers connection, but when I saw the diffs I realized it was inescapable that you had lied. There is simply no way that you could have believed he was not a supporter, given what else you knew beyond the $200 contribution. We had discussed the matter for weeks. It also took a while to try to write this up. It's not as if I didn't confront you about this. When I did, I said "you were told" Ayers was a supporter. When I saw the diffs I realized you had acknowledged it yourself. Noroton (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pop in a comment here to clear the air concerning me. When I filed the report, I saw that WB74 had started an edit war with SCJ pure and simple. He did not have to continue to revert SJC's edits, but he decided to push on. I based my decision to file a report on his past and current behavior. I was not the one who blocked him and would have been perfectly content if the admins had decided not to block him. While I do have some knowledge of the Ayers-Obama argument, my stance then and now was to keep it simple. The article was on Barack Obama and not Ayers and any information about Ayers being militant, unrepentant terrorist, or any similar form, would not have been appropriate on the Obama article as it does/did not directly relate to Obama and is/was mainly a Guilt By Association argument. Brothejr (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the editing you reported was on the George Stephanopoulos page. Despite the fact that you were the one who filed the 3RR report, and although I think that filing was probably not a good thing to do (WB74 hadn't passed three reverts and I don't see a BLP violation, and in fact he did make a comment on the talk page), I have no good reason to even doubt your good faith, Brothejr. You were so closely involved in this that I needed to mention you. Noroton (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This all reminds me of the specious edit warring and talk page squabbling on John Howard over copra plantations and a statement he made about Obama. When we're getting into arguments about $200 donations, I think people just might have lost focus on what we're trying to do as an encyclopaedia and have instead polarised into warring groups of editors who focus on defeating other groups (often it ceases to even be ideological in nature). At the point this occurs, either new accounts surface to assist in one or other side of different battles, or existing editors bored and looking for something to do find the dispute. Reasonable, encyclopaedic editors get driven away by the hostility and the end result is a battlezone, ending in a wasteland when the key offenders get blocked. By the time it gets to that, noone is in the right, as the argument is no longer about improving the article and is instead about cramming (or removing) stuff into an article from a perspective other than that of the "big picture". If editors are unable to do this, perhaps an RfC is going to become necessary.

I should note here that my comments have very little to do with the block I placed on WorkerBee74 recently, which was really just following up on a AN/I proceeding which had been left hanging, and could have been done by anybody, but hadn't. This itself is somewhat symptomatic of the drama that seems to rule at AN/I that very few admins even read it (especially if various editors are flinging 500-word essays at each other) and hence there's a shortage of people to take on the tough cases even when a resolution is clear. Orderinchaos 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IP making legal threats

An IP is making legal threats against Wikipedia because he used his real name on a picture upload and now he doesn't like it. But his tactic is to blank an ongoing discussion on an article talk page. Hs real name and information is posted on his image upload to Wiki-Commons. And now he's blurted his name out in his threatening edit summaries so it soesn't really matter if his name is erased from the current discussion... he pretty much given himself away to the rest of the world anyways. Anyone want to properly erase his edits and also erase the image upload on Commons (under the name "Stra2caster") so that his right to hide is fulfilled properly. Libs (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, also alert the proper authorities at the Foundation's Legal Counsel. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I did the obvious thing and removed his name from this discussion but left the rest of it in. Problem solved (did you really need an admin to do this?) I don't think it's necessary to alert lawyers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:KoziKaz

Can some look into this account? The editor claims (or at least implies) that he is a sock of User:Kazi22. See [109] and [110]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't cause trouble then what does it matter if he is? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he is causing trouble. Reverting comments here and otherwise generally trolling. Huge percentage of talk page edits, many of which are disruptive at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets see what he does now that I have answered his question. If he's trolling he wont be able to stay quiet for long. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is no action being taken? He is still instigating me on my talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a cookie big WOW People on Wikipedia must not be allowed to have fun. User:KoziKaz 9 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop that please. If you are here to edit then do so but you are trolling at the moment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ma'am I understand. User:KoziKaz 9 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright...

Resolved

 – unstumped. _GB^T/C 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

...I'm stumped. Johannes_Kepler. Any takers as to where the vandalism's coming from? _GB^T/C 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See above, I bet. — Scientizzle 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. _GB^T/C 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User at 68.60.162.43 vandalizing TV articles with misinformation

I just thought I'd mention there is an anonymous user at User talk:68.60.162.43 who seems to make sport of making up fake episodes and characters for TV series and adding them to Wikipedia. His latest works are to make up fake characters and episodes up in Transformers: Animated and add mentions of them to articles. He also makes other nonsense edits over the last few months. He seems to have been warned by several people. Can anyone take any further measures? Mathewignash (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WARN the anon appropriately for vandalism, and if it continues, report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed indef block of User:Muntuwandi

I hereby propose an indefinite block on Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). The user has claimed to have "retired", but afterward came back with several socks to evade a block: it was certainly not the first time, either: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. I came across this editor for the first time nearly a year ago, when he was edit warring to insert a picture of Barack Obama into white people, and using a likely sock to back it up. This user has unfortunately done little other than engage in POV pushing (mostly racial agitation), and edit warring (he is currently serving his seventh block for this offense). It is clear that increasing block lengths have done nothing to tame this user, nor will they ever. This proposal is to make it clear that Muntuwandi, or any of his socks, are no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia on account of disruption. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block seems sound. Numerous blocks on his record show he's not getting the message, and using multiple socks to evade a block is a dead giveaway he's not going to follow the rules. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at least a number of topic bans and a longer block. I posted about this above but have had no response yet: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Heavier Sanctions needed. Still waiting for the community to take some kind of action other than simply indef blocking his socks.PelleSmith (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Before this turns into mob justice, at least MW should be given an opportunity to defend against some of these allegations. Evil Spartan for example has made one accusation that is clearly false. Unless he provides evidence that MW used socks on the white people article, he should take that statement back. BO's is half white.Muntoowandi (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sock? Mathsci (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, him and Bucky Burnside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I would make the standing one-month block at least a three-month block, and would have no qualms about making it indefinite. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have semi-protected origin of religion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As we know indef blocks are not community bans, and can be shorted. So if the block is lengthened, even to indef, I would like to see a community sponsored topic ban or other types of topic related sanctions that apply should he return as Muntuwandi or under some other name.PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

← Using at least 5 socks to evade his latest block is sufficient for me, given his long history of disruption and lengthy block log. I've blocked Muntuwandi indefinitely; future socks can be blocked on sight or with checkuser confirmation. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmation is sensible, because there are frequently multiple accounts that can be nipped in the bud. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

His newest sock (please block) is going around voting in AfDs, perchance to seem credible, as if that is possible. While most of these AfDs seem like clear deletes they are not all so (one editor unwittingly appealed to him to check the entry again after adding sources). Pile on the disruption.PelleSmith (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I clarify that Muntuwundi is hereby banned and not just indefinitely blocked? There are technical reasons for this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's always a tricky one, but you can assume that someone indef-blocked, whom no admin is willing to unblock, is de facto banned. That could of course change the second an admin voices an intent to unblock him. If your question has to do with reverting his contributions on sight as those of a "banned" user, then I think that would be justified. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed by concern (though there may be other issues I haven't thought of yet), thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

The above conversation about "ban" v. "block" is exactly why I've been asking if we can't resolve to actually "ban" Muntuwandi from certain topics/entries. This would be a much more complete resolution if he were subject to a topic "ban". There is no reason whatsoever, should he be allowed to return at some later date, that he should be let anywhere near entries related to religion (especially related to the origin of religion): Origin of religion, History of religion, Prehistoric religion, etc. I'm fairly certain that he edited some other areas less contentiously, though I know there are other topics he showed a similar lack of collegiality in. Any takers?PelleSmith (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• While I appreciate your suggestion and sincerity, I would not support a simple topic ban. Muntuwandi continues to sockpuppet to edit these article even as we speak. It has become abundantly clear that this editor cannot and will not abide by the community's principles and policies, and he will not be constructive anywhere. A topic ban would in effect be a ban anyway, and it would have the disadvantage of people having to come here and complain when and if he didn't abide by it. And I don't think Muntuwandi would not sockpuppet anyway, so we'd be back here in 3 days. Edit warring and further sockpupppetry should not be rewarded with the lift of a block and a topic ban which can be further wikilawyered. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not suggest lifting his block at all. An indef block is fine in my book. I'm simply saying that since an indef block isn't actually a community ban some admin could end up lifting it. If that happens I'd like to know that he's on a short leash and will get banned for good should he resume this behavior. Having topic related bans in place I think would help in such a scenario.PelleSmith (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Red Dead Kennedy

Resolved

 – User blocked. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Red Dead Kennedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has responded to a final personal attack warning with the following: [111]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Move on, folks - nothing else to see here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:24.77.204.120

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

This IP user has broken the WP:3RR [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]. This user is also removing comments and stating that "this section is for votes, learn to use these templates before you impliment them", which is not true. This user is also on the verge of starting an WP:EDITWAR on the talk and main page. — NuclearVacuum 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:199.106.52.17

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

This IP user has repeatedly added unsourced opinion to the Doug Duncan article despite the edits' being undone with explanation, and warnings issued on the user's talk page. —Adavidb 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: the same content had been added a few weeks prior, and a year earlier, by registered user Pkostrze. —Adavidb 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive linking to Barefoot

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, mocked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While RC patrolling these past few days, I've noticed a rather bizarre pattern with a set of accounts who apparently have an obsession with barefeet. Various new accounts are adding links to barefoot to artists, fictional characters and other topics. These are then all linked into the article making a huge mess of a list. The edits are usually marked with "minor copyedit" in the edit summary. Looking at the backlinks for barefoot, the obsessive edits are extensive.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the whole mess as undoing everything is going to take a lot of work and it's a bit late here and I'm getting a little punchy. Here is a list of the sockpuppets that I've found, but I know the list is incomplete:

Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This smacks of either an internet message board-organized prank, or a sudden insurgence of foot-fetishists. I hope for the former, and pray for the latter. Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This actually sounds like the work of User:BorisTheBlade, although foot fetishism is common enough that he wouldn't be the only one with a foot fetish wanting to make Wikipedia be in line with his perversion. JuJube (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a ridiculous section on "characters renowned for being barefoot", which was a list of every fictional character they could find that did not wear shoes; I've removed this. Neıl 龱 09:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? If it was sourced, why did you remove the list? Seems odd to remove a list, albeit a freaky list, but of course I AGF no matter what all the time forever and ever, so can you explain your actions? Thanks! Beam 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, only just noticed the question. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-connected information. The characters are not known for being barefoot, they happen to be barefoot. It would be like having a list of every cartoon character with blond hair in Blond. Neıl 龱 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started on the cleanup :P Are all these from the same IP or IP range? (too much to hope for I suppose) EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says there are dozens .... and dozens of new accounts, all SPAs like the above, and all under the one domestic IP. I can maybe list them here (it'll take ages!) but for the meantime, I'm hardblocking the IP - Alison ^❤ 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good news at least. Will listing them here achieve anything? If it's all the one IP, and that's blocked, hopefully they'll stay inactive from now on. EyeSerene^talk 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked all the ones in Gogo Dodo's list above, and rolled back their contribs where I can. Neıl 龱 10:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the following accounts, all under the same IP and all barefoot-obsessed. Each account is a throwaway one, used a few times and then ditched for another one:

1. Libbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. DuffJee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Celestone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. SpecLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Anodice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Nekkra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. TaraJungle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. JunglGrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Nmrita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Marrinna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Vlcnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. DCWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Bmygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. MadmX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. BftGpsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Acronm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. FlyDive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. ODF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. PrincessPowera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. TTekkenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Necrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Slimdancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. GoodGoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. Twilekzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. Silverelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. Undrwtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Creattor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. G-Surf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. SignetR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. Sweetbiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. JuneRites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Starylt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. Deviwings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. Gemmisat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. DFDren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. OroRogue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. Cherylene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Veneshare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. BikiniGL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
40. CaveGrrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

.. and moar! I need to take a break .... this is about half.

 IP blocked

Someone might want to take the onerous task of going through the edits histories and reverting the nonsense. 4am here :) - Alison ^❤ 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's in progress - I was going through backlinks from Barefoot, but your list will make it much easier :) EyeSerene^talk 10:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the rest:

1. Gurat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. EveApples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Pantheons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. AnthrosCave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. R24U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Trailong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Gypyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. JessesRun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Dreamstimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Treadssoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. DanceGrrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. ObsidOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. SurrfGirrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. SoGoodFine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Shareline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. VampiSire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. RockGrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. TheTimeMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Gorunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. OnTheatre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Purecountry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Deepfile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. Shelldiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. SlickZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. Alatem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. Lightriders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Doooz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. Firehearth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. Tinderset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. Gfren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. Tinsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Acrodance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. GracefulDance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. AeonFlexed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. AthleticDiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. MaxiMage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. My-Chi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Mythics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. SoulfireGrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note to self: all checked above this line. EyeSerene^talk 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. RomKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Dolphinin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. DownTownM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. CenterStaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Emeraldt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. AllTheseDays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Salvationrun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Seasideplace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the first account, apparently, dating from mid-May.

Ok, that's the whole drawer emptied out. Lots of "grrl", "girrrl" and "dance" names. Thanks, guys, for starting on the work of sifting through all this mess. Ugh! - Alison ^❤ 11:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And a /18 sweep of the IP range shows everywhere else is clean - Alison ^❤ 11:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All these are now indef blocked. Kevin (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done, All; Quite the project, I should say. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nice work all, and good catch Gogo Dodo. I've now been through the contribs of Alison's first list of 40 - I've left wikilinks in place, but removed everything else. Don't think I'll ever take my shoes off again... EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, y'all might be interested in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler. I wrote an essay based on inspiration from this guy/girl. I actually don't recognize any of the userids, but based on the editing pattern have been tracking him/her for a year or so now. User:FisherQueen has been my usual point of contact mostly because I know her, but if there's a better way I'd love to take it. See here and here and here. At what point to we track down a real person and staple shoes to their feet? WLU (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's truly extraordinary behaviour. I'm currently going through the contribs of sock no. 57, and after who knows how many articles and ~80 corrective edits, I'll happily put up the cash for shoes, a hammer and nails, and a large pot of glue. EyeSerene^talk 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, I've tagged all 87 of the above as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Seasideplace, but if a CU comes back linking these to the 70+ of Creepy Crawler/EJBanks, I'll update the tags. — Satori Son 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So do we know if Seasideplace and Creepy Crawler are connected? Or does there have to be a CU first? 67.162.108.96 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seasideplace wasn't the first account. Miheco (talk · contribs) was active on May 3rd, several days before Seasideplace. Perhaps Alison can provide us with the earliest account? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Miheco account isn't related at all, as it happens. Totally wrong IP address and location, unless there's a secret cross-country cadre of meat-puppeteering foot-fetishists about. Something is definitely afoot! - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looking at the edits, you're right that it doesn't fit the MO. (Perhaps I'm still blurry-eyed). I did include a few suspect accounts in my original list. As for that pun, well, that deserves a groan and a thwack. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not Creepy Crawler. The styles and goals are coompletely different. CC makes up dreamcasts for movies, fake movie plots, bizarre comic book movie categories, bizarre OTHER categories, and compulsively edits Days of Our lives, doing much the same there. I've never noted a foot fetish related editing pattern for him. And as the guy who's helped file a couple of the RFCU's and SSP's against CC, I'm surprised that WLU has never contacted me taht he's also looking for CC. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it's entirely possible that some of the socks for Seasideplace (or someone else) have been attributed to CreepyCrawler by mistake. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This "barefoot" linker has been around for a while. Note that there are well over 250 backlinks to barefoot article, which is, if I may be so bold, completely freaking insane. Common words should not be wikilinked without good reason. More cleanup needs to be done. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to help out. Note too that the backlinks page is still showing quite a few pages that have since been delinked - I assume it's waiting on a bot update or something. EyeSerene^talk 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone could provide some history, with some recent links to confirmed Creepy Crawler socks, I could take a look. Behaviourally alone, it seems highly likely, but I'm not totally familiar with the history of that editor - Alison ^❤ 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here’s the most recently active Creepy Crawler socks: Godcthulha (talk · contribs · block log) and SteveNix (talk · contribs · block log). — Satori Son 13:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(bing)I've also posted a note here on WP:COMICS since s/he seems to like spamming barefoot to comic pages. I'll leave a link to this discussion and if there ever arrives a centralized solution to him/her, they'll probably be able to help ID any new socks or contributions. WLU (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*amused by the irony of someone obsessed with bare feet having so many socks* —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*HAHA!

Lol :D Cleanup is now finished, I think, with massive thanks to Neil, Ryulong, Smith Jones and all the others I've noticed in the article histories while wading (in boots; big, heavy boots... with thick socks) through this horrible mess. Great work all ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that shi attacks comics articles with this nonsense, behaviorally I'd say it's Creepy Crawler (I've dealt with hir in the past). Unfortunately, the most recent I've dealt with is from what, January of this year? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for helping clean up the mess. Sorry that I wasn't able to help out. Like I said, it was pretty late for me (though not as late as Alison!) and I was getting a little blurry-eyed. Nice work, everybody. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cali567

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove to people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, one thing: You shouldn't really be "debating" anything on Wikipedia. Kinda forumish. Secondly, seems like a content dispute. Accusations of sockpuppetry is bad faith, but not a personal attack. Have you tried any WP:RFC? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is being dealt with at WQA already and I don't think it needs sysop attention, so if anyone wants to close it...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR and dynamic IPs

Sorry, what should I do about a person who uses dynamic IPs to edit war? See the history of Medea Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thoughtman. It looks like the user came back editing anonymously to avoid the consensus on the article talk page, but I don't want to edit-war and possibly get blocked over this. Should I just wait until the checkuser goes through and request a block or ban? How would this work for a user with a dynamic IP? Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editing waring I changed computers for personal reasons.

kelly is just being a bully because she knows I'm right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.4.221 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If anything, you're asking us to investigate *you* because of that personal attack against Kelly.

Sadly, Kelly, the only thing I know that can help is full-protection (this is a content dispute, after all). And looking at the article history, I'm inclined to issue a three-day full-protection. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I ended up with this article on my watchlist because of a previous edit war and am trying to prevent another one from breaking out. I thought consensus was achieved, and was attempting to protect it, but if I'm doing wrong please let me know. Kelly ^hi! 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't issued the full-prot yet - but one more bullet and I'll force the ceasefire. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protect seems kind of excessive, actually. Why put up with someone who edit wars while refusing to participate in discussion? The edit war started, a discussion opened up, and Thoughtman continued to edit war while offering only meaningless comments...There's a point at which we can just abandon AGF and call him a vandal. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On its face, actually, full-protection is the only option. This is, flatly, a content dispute, and the protpol forbids using semi-protection in such circumstances as it locks out one side of the dispute. Besides, Thoughtman's account has no edits newer than 6/13, and his block log is pristine. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should wait for the checkuser, then. If CU shows that Thoughtman is the same person as the IPs, then the person has engaged in 4RR despite a warning and will be blocked. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. 3RR only applies within 24 hours, and barring egregrious vandalism, harassment, or legal threats checkusers' hands are tied. You'd only be able to block the IP. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Wikilawyering apparently applies to edit warriors now. Well, one more article off my watchlist. Kelly ^hi! 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not WikiLawyering; I'm telling it like it is. The privacy policy won't permit a checkuser to reveal the edit-warrior's master account when given an IP, especially when the supposed master account is three weeks fallow. Sorry, Kelly, but all you can do is hope for another revert. I have the article watchlisted; if he reverts again I'm blocking for 3RR. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Is the range of IP addresses short enough that a range block wouldn't be too disruptive? I get the impression from Kelly that this anon user is the sort that depletes our energies while simultaneously failing to play well with others. Maybe a semi-prot as an alternative would filter out the IP craziness, and force folk to the discussion page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template Vandalism

• e.g. at Jars of Clay, Screaming Trees

but I couldn't figure out which Template has been corrupted. --Fischbuerger (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear your cache. ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

recurring conduct problem

I am assuming this guy is also this guy, whose IP range was supposedly blocked. Has the block expired, or has he got round it?

Dybryd (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the context in the archives, and apparently continuing problems were to be posted at AIV instead of here, so I'll go do that. Dybryd (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

Resolved

 – Templates fixed; will add these two accounts to WP:RFCU.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There's some template vandalism in Avril Lavigne. It's also on Ann Coulter and template:Infobox Person.-Wafulz (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Avril troll

I was looking at the history of Thandie Newton and made an edit. Then a message about Avril Lavigne and a message from the "Avril troll" showed up and remained in the same place on the screen regardless of where I scrolled. If it only only occurred on Thandie Newton I suspect the perpretrator may have been the anon who made the previous edit: 86.136.128.101 (talk · contribs) Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was in the template, as per the conversation above. First few times that sort of thing happened to me, it confused the hell out of me too ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So any ideas on how to fix it? I'm still getting it on Coulter's and Lavigne's pages.-Wafulz (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:BYPASS. Ctrl-F5 on IE. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's on the Angelina Jolie and Elton John pages too. Ariadne55 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was a cache issue.-Wafulz (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so is the template used for the vandalism protected now? I'm going to full protect infobox person, but was it a different one that was used here? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to know. I can't even see which one was vandalized. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleared my cache but am still seeing the vandalism on Angelina Jolie and Elton John's pages. One is infobox actor and the other is infobox musical artist, but those infoboxes don't seem to be the cause. Ariadne55 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it. RockerTed (talk · contribs) changed Template:Image class names, then did this. All relevant blocks & protections are now in place. — Scientizzle 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange that doesn't appear on any of the articles' recent changes pages. Transcluded pages don't go there? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Transcluded templates are a favorite target for vandals like this because they're on multiple pages and more difficult to detect & revert with your standard recent changes patroller. — Scientizzle 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found and blocked Avril troll User:Wasy Ples who was transcluding code from his talk page onto articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently now resolved - see this thread at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Vandalism on Gregory Peck.3F. – ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Still appers at the Bon Scott Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.171.140 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear your cache (Shift+F5 on IE or Shift+Ctrl+R on Firefox). That should remove it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Try viewing the Galileo Galilei article, but Logged-out. I'm getting it, but not when logged in. Fribbler (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Only in firefox when logged out. Not in IE. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just had my brother on his computer check the Galileo article while logged out. He just thought that the lock was off. The issue seems to have been resolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can be seen on the Sex Pistols page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.240.16 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Monty Python -209.204.170.139 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Avril Troll" has vandalised the Screaming Trees page too - unfortunately I don't know how to remove it. In page source it appears below "Copy Editing" note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.75 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All of these pages do not appear to be vandalized on my computer. Any of the templates affected have been reverted and fixed. In the case at Screaming Trees it was a template transcluded onto {{infobox musical artist}} which has since been fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Avril Troll? (moved from below)

Somehow a fixed text box appeared on the page without any changes being noted in the page's history file. Not sure if this should be vandalism as a quick Edit clears it away (without even modifying the History page). Pakopako (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism. It was fixed earlier, but the template vandalized was on several thousand pages. It should be fixed, but it's taking its time to fix everything. Editing the page will fix it, as will purging your cache.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Not showing up for me so I say your ISP may have cached the page? Do you use a proxy? Also possible that the ISP may use a transparent proxy. Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked in an IE tab, I asked my brother who was logged out on another computer, it's because the server is taking a while to catch up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Block requested

Please refer to this diff and the history of the article. Despite polite requests and a final warning, the article contunies to be attacked. The person responsible is operating under two usernames and an IP address. I strongly recommend that a block is imposed. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've blocked only one, Khurram85, as I can't see any other usernames - but the block should pick them up anyway. Orderinchaos 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that indefinite was really necessary. "Polite requests" = a single generic huggle1 template that didn't explain what was wrong with their edits. A new user was writing about cricket in Korea on the South Korea national cricket team article. Sure the edits weren't appropriate, but describing what they were doing as attacking the article is a stretch. --Onorem♠Dil 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The person has persistently used the article as a sounding board for his own views about cricket in Korea. His content is entirely inappropriate and he will obviously continue unless blocked. He might not be abusive but he is still a nuisance who has to be reverted on a daily basis. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eiland pov pushing, gaming the system,

Editor is gaming the system and attempting to dictate the content of Core damage frequency. Has made absolute demands about content on talk page and made no attempt at discussion before last revert. Eiland only discusses when warned directly by mods and otherwise Eiland reverts when other editors challenge him/her claiming lack of discussion. If editor should start discussion, Eiland avoids discussing. It's a strategy to ensure that his/her changes to an article are maintained without consensus. Nailedtooth (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The content being added appears to be uncited anyways. Based ont he information on the citations lsited (on the talk page). Making the leap from the source to the assertion is somewhat of a case of orignial research. I have removed the addition and am looking into this a bit more. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Eiland has only made 3 edits in the past sevearl weeks with the edits before that on june 20th. This is just a content dispute effictivley and this is not the place to report this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)