Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive349

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Open proxies at Bates method[edit]

Resolved

Just a heads up, but in the last week or so, a whole lot of identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:

There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies; they'll identify and block. As for TORs, I'll check using the infobox in each IP's contribs. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, other admins have it. The advice avbout WP:OP applies, however. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Already identified and blocked, half a dozen admins beat me to the punch. east.718 at 05:19, January 2, 2008
Actually, it took me less than a minute to verify all of em, but no one is giving me a chance to block them, so I moved on to crack, instead. El_C 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, dude. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually reported three of them some hours ago, but nothing happened. More to the point, these were a whole lot that all centered on a single article, which was my real cause for concern and something some unovolved and/or tool-bearing admin could look into. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be quick. I got four of them by starting at the bottom. Jehochman Talk 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bates method semi'd for 120 hours. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Why has the page been protected? Proxy paranoia? 87.28.84.44 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I ask a simple question about why semi protection is being abused on this article, and the first reaction is for an admin to block my IP, instead of undoing the manifestly out of process protection. How about allowing anyone to edit? (copied to Oxymoron83's page) 122.145.6.138 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop using Tor - open proxies are prohibited on all Wikimedia projects because of abuse. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Um no, this is not the case. There is no prohibition on open proxies. The Foundation doesn't prohibit them, Jimmy Wales doesn't prohibit them, the meta policy doesn't prohibit them, and the policy on this wiki doesn't prohibit them. The policy even says that users are explicitly allowed to use them, "freely" it says. Sure they get abused and blocked from time to time, but they are certainly not prohibited. On the other hand the protection policy allows protection when there is vandalism, and prohibits protection to prevent anonymous editing. Your protection on the grounds of "IP Abuse" is without any foundation in policy, and worse, is detrimental to building an encyclopedia. 80.249.115.147 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(RI) From the Meta policy: Although Meta encourages anyone in the world to contribute, such proxies are often used abusively. Since MediaWiki (the wiki software) depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, open proxies allow users to completely circumvent administrators. The use of scripts or bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators. Several such attacks have ocurred on Wikimedia projects, causing heavy disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns. (emphasis mine) The Wikipedia policy is simply a reiteration of the Meta policy, and both are generally interpreted as prohibitions on using open proxies. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You deliberately missed out the relevant bit of the consensually agreed policy: "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Your protection has no basis in any policy. 64.191.50.123 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring is legitimate editing? Mr.Z-man 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This TOR proxy's just playing Harvey Birdman now. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As a Anti-Spam Evangelist I am very worried when anon users try to edit with anonymous proxy IPs, but as a free speech and a human rights advocate I am conserned that some people in some countries may not be able to access WikiPedia for reading the content. Is it possible to allow anonymous proxy users to read the content but block them from editing? Igor Berger (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is always the case for all blocks. Blocks only block an editor from editing Wikipedia but the said person can still read. --WinHunter (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OP backlog[edit]

Somebody want to take a look at WP:OP, which has a big backlog? Which, unfortunately, I'm responsible for, since I started adding candidates 37 hours ago and which no one -- with a couple of exceptions -- has touched since? One of those exceptions is one of the Tor proxies commenting above, which I, in fact, had already flagged 13 hours ago.--Calton | Talk 12:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone here is a trusted proxy-checker. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Daft[edit]

Resolved

Could an administrator please study all edits made by this person since mid-December? Other relevant pages are User talk:Richard Daft and User talk:88.111.83.82.

Richard Daft's contributions are persistently unconstructive. It seems that he is using WP as a means of mounting personal attacks against a particular individual. Some of his comments amount to abuse. Attempts to reason with him have produced responses that are at best incoherent and at worst potentially threatening. His edits have all been reverted apart from his last one which is still on my talk page.

My recommendation is that this user and IP address are blocked for a suitable cooling off period and that appropriate admin notices are posted on the relevant pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your post seems to be a spillover from a very hot content dispute at such places as John Leach (writer). Please supply diffs of any violations of Wikipedia policies that you believe have occurred. A cursory scan of the contributions suggests that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the best option for you to pursue. Though I don't know who should receive credit for the article improvement, the John Leach article looks pretty good right now (improved since November), and this is the period when you suggest the bad actions by Daft occurred. I did not see any vandalism, only good faith edits. Daft has not touched the article since 19 December, while many edits have happened since, so it's surely not an ongoing problem. Some of Daft's messages on your Talk are overheated, and he should moderate his language. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not good enough. Look at the three latest posts by Daft/Asquith and it is clear that he is deliberately conducting a campaign to try and discredit John Leach. I see he is now trying to forge an "alliance" with another member. His statement that the e-mail sent to Mr Wynne-Thomas was "rude and unpleasant" is a pack of lies. The e-mail was posted on a forum and read by perhaps 100 people. It is a polite and arguably humorous response to a book review that Wynne-Thomas had written.
Furthermore, in a previous post to me, Daft closes with a statement that could be construed as a threat: how else can you take being told to shut up or something serious will happen?
Do you want genuine editors to quit WP because of vindictive people like Daft or are you going to do something to prevent Daft from adding to his tally of 30-odd invectives all directed against one person? --AlbertMW (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have absolutely had it. I cannot stand this situation any longer and I am resigning from the site. If you are going to do something about Daft then contact User:BlackJack and listen to what he says. Otherwise, let Daft have what he wants and you might as well shut the site down. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The responses to Mr Wynne-Thomas are far from humorous and this can be verified by contacting him at Notts CCC. Mr Leach also sent me a diatribe based on false information(He quotes the ACS minutes - I have them as do a small number of other people, and what he states is not born out by the facts). I have had one intention is starting this debate and it is this - Wikipedia needs, as far as possible to be accurate. Obviously mistakes occur, articles are fattened up over time and blatant errors removed and controversy discussed. In my opinion and that of many acknowledge experts(people used as a source by other well known writers, called on in the media, written prize winning books etc) is that whilst Mr Leach has an excellent knowledge of cricket and especially pre-1800, he is not an expert because his research has been secondary. In other words he has not spent 20, 30 plus years researching newspapers and original artefacts - in this area, neither have I but others have and they have compiled books, reports and articles and made their research available. Mr Leach, legitimately has drawn on this. Was is not legitimate to claim that his work is breaking new ground. It is not. he has found athe odd new score and drawn attention to others. So have I, so have thirty other people(I prefer the period from 1840) he has written an ebook that makes claims, some of them reasonable and some of them not. What is problematic is he has no sources or examples of original research to substantiate these claims. Therefore the crux of the matter is that the original and subsequent revision of his entry are completely misleading. Mr Wright is not a cricket expert and you cannot supervise a site such as this without a high level of knowledge and, it seems to me, a lack of objectivity. I would re-iterate that I was the one who initially publish Mr Leach's match scores list. It is a bit rich for him to say I receive criticism from the ACS committee over articles when his was the one in question. I would reiterate again that he has done an excellent job with the overwhelming majority of his additions to the site. However he has made some which are simply not accepted by anybody but himself. I have just seen Mr Leach's new entry and this surely is a better entry. Concise and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Daft (talkcontribs) 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) M Asquith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.101.5 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question placed by the alleged "admin" on AlbertMW's page, someone called Mark Asquith (see above) is operating on here as User:Richard Daft (see above) and nearly every single one of his posts since he first appeared on about the 12th December has consisted of invective and diatribe against one person, as per the incoherent drivel above, which is a typical sample.
Whenever genuine editors have tried to be reasonable with him he becomes abusive, ignores what is said and goes off at a tangent before coming back with yet more of the same unsubstantiated garbage.
What has happened to WP:CIVIL? AlbertMW has specifically complained about a comment like "shut up before something serious happens" and you do nothing about it?
AlbertMW resigned from the site this morning and I am resigning from it this afternoon. If Wikipedia's so-called administrators will stand aside and allow a campaign of vitriol like this to be pursued against one person for over three weeks then the site is not worth supporting.
If you want people on the site who carry on like Asquith is doing then go ahead. You're welcome. I'll find another way to pass the time. Goodbye. --BlackJack | talk page 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that there are some clear WP:COI questions regarding Richard Daft's involvement in this article, his responses suggest he knows some of the parties off-wiki and is deeply involved in the situation there. If it turns out that that has been his main motivation for editing here, WP:SPA would apply. WP:LEGAL applies to the threat made to AlbertMW if someone can point me to it. Orderinchaos 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked indefinitely. On review it is certain to me that this person is a classic case of a single-purpose account with an offline conflict of interest on the topic, and has acted belligerently towards other contributors, including two third-person legal threats in comments to others. Per Jimbo's action on Miltopia, we do not need contributors of this type - we can already see it's possibly lead to the departure of two productive Wikipedians. I'd note to BlackJack and others that that doesn't give you a free pass to act equally uncivilly, although I saw no reason to act on that as it was clearly provoked. I have offered unblock to the person on condition that they give up on the John Leach article and operate within the COI and BLP rules. Orderinchaos 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Almost forgot to note, my review did pick up another potential COI with another editor, who has an article about them on the site, but that editor has not contributed to either the article or talk page, and in the circumstances I commend their restraint. Orderinchaos 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed POV (Resolved)[edit]

Resolved

Does anyone agree that the following is POV?

when the author combined his work in quality assurance and quality control points with function deployment used in Value Engineering

Rjsfhl (talk · contribs) has inserted this several times, but insists it is not POV on his talk page. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tales of it, sounds like corporate double speak to me, but it sounds like a content dispute. Maybe try getting more input on the articles talk page. This really isn't the place for content disputes. RxS (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not POV if it's supported by a citable reference. It is saying that the creator of this technique did so by synthesising two existing approaches, and he either did that or he didn't. This would be better at WP:3O, perhaps, as the article's talk page is not overloaded with editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Rodhullandemu. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not POV. "A combined X and Y to make Z." I don't understand why anyone would think it *is* POV. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I can see it could possibly be read as POV is if someone didn't realise that quality assurance and quality control are two processes used to maintain the quality of a product, and as such the word "quality" is not actually a comment on this person's work. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please halt this (Resolved)[edit]

Resolved

Last week I reported massive canvass disrupting a move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß. The proposal was rightfully speedy closed by User:James086, who called for a period of about one month to elapse before a new move proposal could take place (in order to have the canvass die out). However, the same user took the initiative to restart the same move proposal just a few days later, apparently pressed by users unsatisfied with the early closure. I've contacted James about this but received no response. Meanwhile, at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß the second proposal goes on, with the effects of last week's canvass still obviously present. Please analyze this situation that should really be halted. Thanks. Húsönd 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have been closed in favor of the move. I stand mute on whether the closure is proper, but note that the most recent discussion began on 28 December. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Requested move discussions are opened for five days or whenever discussion has ended (whichever is greater), and the Strauß/Strauss discussion was on the WP:RM backlog when I closed it - I note 28 December was 7 days ago, and there had been no particularly relevant contributions to the discussion since 31 December. Neıl 13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I specifically highlighted the date. Apart from not waiting a month before opening a new discussion, I saw no other problems with the discussion, which is why I didn't comment on them - nor do I see evidence of canvassing, as was claimed in the previous discussion. It looks like a good close to me. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Personally, I'm not sure how bringing an ongoing move discussion to the attention of interested parties could have been construed as canvassing, providing both "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed. And as for the lack of a month's wait, given a discussion had taken place, at great length and in an admirably scholarly fashion, it would have been very discourteous to dismiss it with a "sorry, you didn't wait long enough" and leave as is. Neıl 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
providing bot "sides" of the discussion are similarly informed - didn't happen here. Check the first move proposal at Talk:Franz Josef Strauß and see what User:Unschool's canvass to 34 users supportive of only one "side" made to that discussion before it was speedy closed. You'll see a handful of those 34 back at the second proposal. By the way, I don't think that informing both sides of a discussion would not be canvass. The only way to make things even is not to tell anyone. Húsönd 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to provide evidence, other than the way they ultimately voted, for your claim that they were chosen based on what "side" they're on (IIRC the proportions among those who were not canvassed were similarly overwhelmingly in favor of the move, and this was a reason people were dissatisfied with the early closure). It looks to me like you're against the move and, lacking any consensus for your view, you're lobbying against it any way you can. If there were a significant number of people who agreed with you surely they would have spoken up one of the times this came up in this highly visible noticeboard. —Random832 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was against the move and that's a no-brainer because I participated in the first poll as "oppose", shortly before the canvass had taken place. But the far-fetched lobbying accusation I think you should have kept for yourself instead of posting it on "this highly visible noticeboard", because a) you don't have any evidence for that; b) WP:AGF and c) it's rude. Húsönd 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You've made the accusation (without providing any evidence beyond the way they ultimately did vote, which is insufficient) that the users who were notified were chosen because they were predisposed to vote one way. It doesn't violate AGF to suggest the possibility that you _might_ be forum-shopping, especially since the subject line above clearly indicates (states outright, in fact) that you were fishing for a particular outcome rather than just asking for more eyes on the issue. —Random832 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was "fishing" for this proposal to be halted so that a new one could occur in a month with a greatly reduced suspicion of canvass interference. Where that goes to an agenda for enforcing an outcome I fail to grasp. Again, you should have just assumed good faith, as all users should be required to. Húsönd 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4 users who contributed to the second poll were notified of the first. So of those canvassed, 4 returned to the second RM (all of which supported the move). Even if they were to be discounted from the second survey, the numbers would be 12-4 in favour, still 75% in favour of a move so I don't think the original canvass has had a large enough effect on the second discussion to mark it void. I began the second move discussion because it was clear that many people did not want to wait a month to have another discussion. During the second dicsussion a note was left at the German Wikiproject informing people of the move request, but per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices it would be acceptable. James086Talk | Email 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
They were 5 actually but yes, even disregarding them we would still have a majority calling for the article to be moved. And yet, I still don't trust the outcome of this discussion. Should this have happened a month or so later and everything would look much better for me. Canvass is a powerful disruptor, even off-wiki, and only time can weaken it. Anyway, I'll drop this. Húsönd 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism 192.249.47.11[edit]

Resolved

This IP address has numerous warnings (including one in the past 30 days) and at least one previous block (see User_talk:192.249.47.11. I have reverted two vandalism edits in the past 24 hours. I'm recommending another block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancookie (talkcontribs) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked. Thanks, but that shared IP has no warnings after its recent vandalism, and as a matter of practice, we do not block users until after a recent final warning. For future reference, such requests are processed faster at WP:AIV. Sandstein (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability issue at Cayra[edit]

Resolved

An editor recently made this post at WP:EAR. The editors there, including myself, are probably able to handle the DR work, however when I was checking the page's history, I noticed a lot of reverting being done, not as vandalism, but removing and replacing a Notability tag there. I wanted to alert the administrators of this little edit war going on. The article does seem to be covered by multiple independent sources, but it does lack in-text refs. As I mentioned previously, we can handle the DR for now, but this situation might require admin intervention. J-ſtanContribsUser page 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What admin intervention against what or whom, specifically? I just see a minor edit war with IPs and new users over cleanup tags. Sandstein (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
None right now, I just wanted to put admins on alert, in case page protection or 3RR blocks are needed. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not do this again. This page is reserved for incidents requiring actual intervention. Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, won't happen again. I'll post if any intervention is required. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user[edit]

Resolved: IP checked and blocked; sleepers buried. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

LauraWA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another one that needs a block. See the users contribs and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LaruaWA11 for evidence. Also, when blocking, please protect the users' talk page, as when blocked, the user abuses unblock and helpme tags (as evident from the other sockpuppet).

Is there anybody who can further investigate this and perhaps issue an IP block (maybe a range block is needed here, as I guess the autoblock on the other accounts isn't kicking in)? Should I fill out a SSP report? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. As it's pretty obvious socking, go to the IP block section of WP:RFCU and one of the checkusers will take care of it. east.718 at 04:38, January 4, 2008
I'll file the IP sock request. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Aaaaaand filed. It's in the CUs' hands now. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I had the check request all done and got the e/c...you're too quick. Thanks for the help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It's over. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Guettarda violating 3RR, suggesting bad faith[edit]

Resolved

no violation was found at AN3. Spartaz Humbug! 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [1], [2], [3], [4]. The last edit suggests bad faith, incorrectly characterizes a fact tag (the fact tag was to a sentence that never had its own citation). I don't think this is good form on the part of Guettarda, but thought I'd submit for others to look at. Guettarda is well liked no doubt so disinterested admins only please. TableManners U·T·C 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking for the 3RR noticeboard; I see nothing in here that requires special attention beyond that. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
User notified of thread. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Golbez, was this the wrong spot? I'll have to move it then? Thanks. TableManners U·T·C 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please close this as I moved it to the 3RR noticeboard per above advice. TableManners U·T·C 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Table Manners was removing sources as "unnecessary" and then adding {{fact}}, that after complaining that other editors were "anti-Christian". Looked like garden variety disruption/bad faith editing to me. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with personal attack containing possibly confidential information[edit]

Resolved

Can someone please delete the following revision: [5]? It contains information that might be used to locate or harass the subject of the attack by the IP vandal. I have reverted the live version of the page, but it is still in the history. Lankiveil (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Deleted. violet/riga (t) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec'd)Beaten to it by User:Violetriga. However, whilst I was there I have also given a strong warning to User:Dlo2012 here Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:71.232.240.3 - time to cut this person off?[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for 1 month. MastCell Talk 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at all the warnings here, and check out the revision history of Oskar Schindler. Is it time to stop AGFing and cut this person off (especially since it appears to be a static IP)? Avruchtalk 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

let's see... 4 months of persistent vandalism, no useful contribs, and an apparently static IP... I've blocked it for 1 month. If the IP resumes vandalizing after that, escalating toward 6 months would probably be appropriate IMO. MastCell Talk 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism[edit]

Resolved: on its way to WP:OVERSIGHT

Here is vandalism in the edit summary. If feasible, an admin might want to delete and recreate without this entry. Not sure how this should be handled, or if it should just be ignored. Regards.--12 Noon  17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be better handled here Wikipedia:Requests for oversight given the lengthy article history. MBisanz talk 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to associate my email address with this. If this is a necessary step, I would appreciate it if someone in the know could complete it for me. Regards.--12 Noon  17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll do it. I have a Wikipedia specific e-mail account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted the request as directed at the deletion guidelines for administrators. Now I'm off to deal with the edit summary vandalism at user's talk page, unless it's already been handled by someone else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for handling it. I did not warn him - I wanted to see how to handle it first. Regards.--12 Noon  17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I had warned him (retroactively no less--I accidentally dated it 2004), but another admin decided it was reason enough to block. I have no issues with that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism like this happens all the time. I think generally deletion is enough, a request for oversight is not really necessary. PeaceNT (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, administrators are encouraged to avoid deleting pages with a lengthy revision history to do a selective delete-and-restore, because it takes forever and taxes the server. I believe the deletion page suggest contacting oversight as they, I can only assume, have some easier way to deleting specific revisions. Natalie (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor evading an indef block[edit]

Resolved

Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Continues to evade an indefinite block by ChrisO at the Glenn Greenwald talk page (It's the holidays I guess). Previously posted: IP 71.100.1.7 signs as Raphaelaarchon diff for add to GG article
and earlier diff signing as Raphaelaarchon (diff -same IP)
Today (slightly different IP): link

Some information behind block can be found here: [6]
I think it's obvious, but if others disagree, I'll take it to CU. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a reasonably good match to me. The IP appears fairly static. I've blocked it for 31 hours; if the abuse continues from the same IP, let me know and I'll extend the block. If socks from numerous IP's start showing up, we could semi-protect the talk page temporarily, but I'd prefer not to do that unless it's absolutely necessary since it would shut out all IP editors from commenting on the article. MastCell Talk 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not too worried about it. I just want to get fresh input every once in a while before I remove the disruptive comments/personal attacks. R. Baley (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Near-Earth asteroid and Administrator User:WilyD[edit]

Resolved: Content disputes are better handled on talk pages than ANI, no admin action is needed. 1 != 2 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Respected Sirs/Madams-

In above mentioned article honourable Administrator User:WilyD wrote, "Asteroids with diameters of 5-10m impact the Earth approximately once per year, producing explosions as large as atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, approximately 15 kilotonnes of TNT."

The reference can not be verified as it only show abstract of paper. But whatever may be content of paper, asteroids do not strike earth once per year to produce explosion like atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

For example, where such explosion occured during 2007 or 2006? Why media always ignore these asteroids which has capacity to destroy cities and kill millions of people?

Statement of such enormous magnitude really need reliable sources which reader can verify. I request you to please guide me in this regard. Thanks. NEO (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You could've asked me. Although Nature is the subject of constant jokes in my workplace over its unreliability, it still easily meets Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Cheers, WilyD 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The citation is most valid, anybody can email me if they have a burning desire for the article itself. east.718 at 19:32, January 4, 2008

I don't think this is really something that needs Admin attention - I have started a discussion on WilyD's talk page. (Though I have to say the citation may be valid but I strongly suspect it fails WP:Sense. Kelpin (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Just becuase a source says something does not mean we should accept it. I am pretty sure natural 15 kiloton explosions do not happen every year. I think a claim that bold would need multiple reliable sources. Regardless, this is not an incident needing admin attention, it is a content dispute. 1 != 2 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a concluding note, the statement is correct, and one could easily produce oodles of sources that'd confirm it - seems like a silly waste of time, but -> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ will serve you for all your astronomy sourcing needs. Nature may be silly, but I'm sure you could find the same numbers in Iracus which is tres hot. WilyD 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but possibly misleading. The source refers to total energy carried by the impactor, not to the energy of an explosion at ground level. I think that's clear to someone familiar with the field, but needs clarification in the article. I took a shot at it. --Reuben (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist vandal[edit]

Resolved: Blocked.

GodBlessUSA (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). New account, few edits. Seems to be single purpose. Rolled back and deleted edits include attacks on Muslims and leaving messages of "88" (apparently a Nazi greeting). Questionable username. I'd also say this fellow is English not American, from his edits, so he's probably just a troll. I'm inclined to block indefinitely but I'm a bit out of touch and I don't have any other admins online on my MSN list to consult with. Indef block now or let him collect warning templates? --kingboyk (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bang! [7] there was no need for hesitation his edit pattern was enough to warrant a block for disruption. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Endorse, thanks, &c. --kingboyk (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and he actually already had collected quite a few warning templates, though he'd deleted them from his talk page. I was beaten to the block button by mere seconds. Good block. MastCell Talk 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton[edit]

While reviewing new edits, I noticed an edit that seemed to boarder on WP:AGF. I mentioned this to him / her and immediately received a response: "You would, in fact, be dead wrong. Go away." I shall refrain from responding to kind of comment. Perhaps someone else could remind him / her to be a little more constructive and less hostile. Thank you. 58.88.55.173 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Without commenting one way or the other, I have advised Calton of this thread. [8] Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that the Hirohito page move issue is kind of a heated topic right now, with some discussion here that might help explain Calton's commentary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Calton was previously blocked in November for "continued incivility and taunting", following a block in September for "persistent incivility and taunting of other users"; in fact, this behavior has been going on throughout Calton's editing career, for about three years. Since returning from his last block, he has engaged in further incivility and generally aggressive editing. I suggest that only a block of quite considerable length may be sufficient to convince Calton to follow our policies concerning interaction with other users. Everyking (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The two diffs here, while not commendable, are not in themselves blockworthy. If James (or anyone) has more diffs since the last block we can certainly take a look. Haukur (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Another edit of Calton's caught my eye - on 1 January, he blanked another user's userpage here. The user, Sellick666 (talk · contribs), has contributions, but has not edited since 1 November 2007, so I'm not clear on what caused this to become an issue. The userpage didn't have a whole lot of worthwhile material on it, and did have profanity, but the edit summary read "blank non-editor's page". MegaMom reverted the change, and Calton reverted twice as vandalism. MegaMom then left a note on the user's talk page apologizing for the incident here, which Calton then removed as "nonsense" here. Again, I don't know if it's blockworthy, but it's certainly unusual and quite possibly uncivil. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
See also: [9] Everyking (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
While I appericate the above diff being added to this discussion, could we please leave me out of it, as it will get me in much trouble. Thank you...NeutralHomer T:C 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Doon't see how it would, he's clearly baiting you into trouble. Big deal. so long as no one finds a diff where you bothered to respond, you're perfectly in the clear. And block Calton for a long time. ThuranX (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Calton has subsequently blanked that user’s page two more times here and here and placed a warning template on MY talk page entitled “Pointless Stalking” [10] which was removed by another user as “undue harrassment” [11] Please, note that he has referred to my restoration of a user page he BLANKED as belonging to a “non editor” as vandalism (!) That seems pretty uncivil to me. Honestly, I think a lack of civility is only the tip of the iceberg where Calton is concerned and a long block might do him some good. MegaMom (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There are nicer ways to deal with people, no matter how difficult.
Without wishing to comment one way or the other on Calton's actions, it should be noted that the other user who reverted his "Pointless Stalking" on MegaMom's talk page with the comment of "undo harassment" is an IP with a grand total of 5 edits, 4 in the last 24 hours, of which one of those was the reversion in question, a second was a reversion of another of Calton's edits to User talk:Gross1952, and a third was a continuation of the edit war on List of fictional ducks, with El C and Calton on one side and a number of IPs on the other. To my mind that doesn't smack of the actions of a wholly impartial user. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand and respect the fact that Neutralhomer wishes to be left out of this, however, it should be noted that although Calton was last blocked for incivility on November 19, his edit history shows that he only returned to editing December 23. (In other words, he’s been back less than two weeks.) One of his first edits on the day he returned included the following edit summary: “Not your call, Mr. Stalky McStalkerson. Say, didn't you just get in trouble for abusing TWINKLE?" [12] Followed shortly with : “That would be you, Mr. Poor-Impulse-Control. Hey, whatever happened to your pious promise to stop the stalking and blind reversions? Was that taken away, too?” [13] That doesn’t sound to me like someone, who fresh off a block, has learned a lesson or is remorseful for his conduct. MegaMom (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The mere fact that a user's edit history shows no edits before 23 December is not absolute grounds for determining that they have only been back at editing for two weeks since the expiry of their last block. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I realise that might fly slightly in the face of my comment two paragraphs earlier, as on the surface I'm assuming that the IP editor concerned hasn't made other contributions under a registered username or another IP address, which is entirely possible. I'm pretty certain, however, that Calton wasn't entirely absent between the expiry of his November block and December 23. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 11:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I definitely respect NeutralHomer's wish to stay out of this as well, but I think the fact that Calton knew about NeutralHomer's "Twinkle abuse" is a bit stalker-ish of Calton, not NeutralHomer.   jj137 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Pardon my French, but what the hell is going on here? All I saw was East718 (talk · contribs) placing username and indef-block templates on those pages and blocking him. However, he unblocked himself a moment later. Could we find out what exactly is going on? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. A couple of us have already left a note at East718's talk page asking for an explanation of the block. Metros (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what's that about? Is it because 13's an unlucky number? :) Kidding. Probably just a slip of the mouse. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently something to do with user error on a report in IRC (blocked reporter rather than subject of report), but awaiting clarification from East718 himself. AGF on fumble-fingers for now, I assume... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Who wants to bet me that it has to do with this? Time is identical to the block time. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I guess others already figured this out on East's talk page. Thought I was so clever... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted my suspicions on East718's talk page; can't wait to see if they were correct. Face-angel.svg Миша13 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm male, btw. :) Миша13 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, chummer. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know admins could unblock themselves. Odd how he happened to have been experimenting on that before the block. --Thinboy00 @210, i.e. 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They can, but it's considered very poor form to do so. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, mea culpa... this is the first time in more than two months that I've made a mistake of this nature... and second, Misza13 is the smartest person in the room. east.718 at 04:13, January 4, 2008

Repeated vandalism on Endowment (Latter Day Saints)[edit]

restoring past discussion for contextKww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The LDS have a tradition of silence about certain of their traditions. This has led to trouble on a few articles, notably Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Temple garments, where LDS editors will attempt to strike large sections of text and images on religious grounds. Usually, they give up after a few patient explanations that we don't censor Wikipedia to match any religious groups tastes. One particularly persistent anonymous editor showed up on Nov. 13, 2007, alternately using IP address 12.159.66.24 and 68.4.107.116 (its a home and a work account for the same user, as stated on the talk page. This editor claims that it is "excessively detailed", but the section he strikes is exactly the same section stricken as "too sacred" by previous LDS members. I've explained it to him. I've enlisted the help of User:Storm Rider, a long term LDS member. He has explained it to him, and recognised, as I did, that the issue was the "sacredness" of the material, not the detail. Ultimately, Endowment (Latter Day Saints) was semi-protected to put a stop to it. After that, User:Brock Soaring pops up, a single purpose account that makes that edit, and only that edit, repeatedly. The tone and style of his comments make it clear he is the same anonymous editor. Protecting the article doesn't seem to be the answer: blocking Brock Soaring probably is.Kww (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least this user is contributing with the same account now ;). In any case, you're right, this is a single purpose account, and he has been chided by other users, including LDS members, to no avail, and continues to edit war. Will an administrator give this user a short block for edit warring and incivility? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added a level four warning to his talk page, but since this has been added to the AN/I, he has not edited. I'll watch the article (which I did in the past for months); if he chooses to ignore the latest round of advice, it will likely result in a block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He only shows up every few days ... one of the behaviour patterns he shares with the anonymous IPs that were making the same edits before. I could take care of it for a long time without hitting 3RR, but I don't want to risk looking like I'm in a slow edit war.Kww (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Brock came back today, in the guise of the anonymous IP he used before (12.159.66.24), and deleted the exact same text, despite having received a level 4 warning. Can we please just block all three and be done with it?Kww (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Given that this user has a history of persistent, long term disruption, both at the Endowment article and elsewhere (i.e. WP:OWN of RealGM), I'm going to do block all three accounts. The IP pages will have {{anonblock}} added in case there are legit users who get caught up in it. If other admins want to revise this solution, that's fine, but make sure to look through the three contribution histories first to check the extent of the problem. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do I take this mess?[edit]

this user page is the editor's only real work, and it's creepy, if nothing else. I ceratinly don't want to know how he 'scores' it. Is this MfD material? or can an admin just fix it? ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD, IMO. It looks like a record of some sort of contest or game. It doesn't look like an attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The user hasn't edited in months, so I just blanked it. As Jimbo says, this is a wiki, after all. ;) --B (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Holy friggin' World Catfight Championships. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is THAT what it was? I sorta was afraid to think into it too deeply. Thanks B. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Debbiesvoucher 3rd request[edit]

I'm none too happy about having to go through the archive to find that my complaint was moved there with no action or response taken on it, even after I had to come back to the complaint the second time and ask again for someone to look into it, and then someone else put (needs attention) on the heading. This is the original request:

The comments that this user made in response to my note regarding the rude and incivil edit summary left on the Front Page Challenge page (diff) & admonition regarding a pattern of unsourced, speculative and original research additions was beyond acceptable, and is not new behavior from this user & his/her sock puppet. This is a sock puppet identity of another user who has said similar things in the past (diff) and was blocked for it, nearly identical to what was said tonight. (diff) My confirmation was the comment regarding the use of interlibrary loan, which was brought up in a dispute resolution process for the article Karyn Kupcinet. I can't file a sock puppet report on this until after the holiday week, as one or the other identity has indicated elsewhere that he or she is not at the regular place he/she posts during the holiday. This is a pattern of behavior that waxes and wanes from this user. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that at least SOME administrator would leave, at least, a warning about personal attacks. If no one on this board wants to deal with it, could you at least direct me to someone who will? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the user, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

help sought[edit]

A few days ago user:ScienceApologist (a productive editor) was blocked for 72 hours for incivility and related issues. He had had such issues before as well. After considerable discussion, the roots of the problem seem to be that he is trying to ensure balanced and fair handling of scientific topics, but he feels that when faced with unscientific viewpoints, he will be unsupported if he seeks help, and considered uncivil if he tries to deal with it himself.

Whilst there may be many views on this perception, the bottom line is, he has been suggested to use dispute resolution and factual descriptions of editing problems, and use the community to help in such issues, rather than sharp words and uncivil personal views on editors ("calling a spade a spade").

I'd like to ask if a couple of experienced admins who are neutral in science/pseudoscience type issues, possibly with some mediation-type ability, might be willing to offer themselves as people he can contact if he has a problem, for a more immediate response/input/handling? Thus supporting him better, and maybe making it easier to get this kind of problem resolved without wondering how much time or hassle it will take if he can't speak as he's used to :)

Relevant background (shortish): User_talk:ScienceApologist#Handling_problem_editors.

Thanks to anyone able and willing!


FT2 (Talk | email) —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The major problem here is that ScienceApologist has enemies, and those enemies know his hot buttons and press them relentlessly. Getting SA out of the way would be a major step forward for those wishing to promote fringe and pseudoscientific views on Wikipedia; he's a standard bearer for scientific rationalism, well educated and articulate. The various arbitration cases surrounding paranormal subjects, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and the non-standard cosmologies case, show how determined the fringe advocates are. I'm trying to help as much as I can. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In part yes, but the issue here and now is, he has made clear he doubts that he will get prompt support and help if he did try a more "DR" type approach. Support may provide either reassurance, or skilled input if a dispute arises. In both cases he may feel if it's in competent hands, or he has competent admins to pass it to who will help resolve it properly, then he may not feel under such pressure personally to act himself, as he has been. If he felt he had support that would act effectively, that could only be good for both him and for the project. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is another problem, of course, which is that in most of these cases the neutral point of view is much closer to the scientific point of view than the paranormal. Which means that the paranormal supporters will not consider the neutral parties to be neutral, and anyone they do consider neutral probably won't be :-/ Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with JzG here. Though, I find a substantial problem with many folks trying simply to insist on use or not use of the word pseudoscience. Even in "mainstream" academia there is plenty of poor (even pseudo) science that has gone on, and is going on. If we keep to clear explainations of sources, and not worry about 'labels' as much, we might keep the heat lower on some of these topics as well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If people are willing to help me with this, please add your names to User:ScienceApologist#Administrative helpmates. I really do appreciate this. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor considers an administrator neutral is one problem. The more immediate one is helping SA to feel he can stand back a bit from the line of direct confrontation, in favor of more dispute-skilled others who can help him better, when an actual problem conduct or dispute is at hand. This will keep disputes down a lot. As a community, we appoint mentors (and admins step in on disputes) every day, routinely. First things first, then deal with any genuine remaining issues. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I will help as much as I can as a user, and I will step in and say that ScienceApologist's experience seems very real to me. There is a problem with admins that misapply NPOV when the article is about scientifically nonsensical subjects. The one and only time I have been blocked was for "edit warring" on What the Bleep Do We Know, and I have had my behaviour reviewed by one other editor and an admin that I have edited controversial articles on Wikipedia with, both of whom were surprised that blocking was considered or done.Kww (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second! For months now I thought that FT2 and NE2 are the same person and only now I, indirectly, learn otherwise. Not a good sign. El_C 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, is ScienceApologist seeking people who can help him be more civil? Or his he seeking people who can be uncivil for him on his behalf? Perhaps one solution would be to split wikipedia into two, and let ScienceApologist edit one half, and the other one could be "wackypedia"?--feline1 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua[edit]

User:Fasach Nua has made a threat to block me and has accused me of vandalism. I am increasingly concerned about the irratic behaviour of Fasnach. This includes removing opinions from talk pages he disagrees with and he has now resorted to blocking threats. Can anybody tell me if he has any authority to do this. I am a respected editor on Wiki, having contributed hundreds of articles. I do not deserve to be treated like this. If anybody should be blocked it should be him and not me. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Djln, would it be possible to provide examples of this conduct by way of diff's please, thanks, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The conduct Djln is referring to happened on Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA), in which Fasach Nua blanked an entire thread without citing a valid reason for doing so. I have left Fasach Nua a message regarding the blanking. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it it looks like User Djln cpoied and pasted an entire threat from talk:Fasach Nua into an article talk page. Fasach removed it Djln edit warred over it and Fasach left a level 4 warning on Djln's talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever call it vandalism but Fasach Nua was rm'ing a very unfriendly and longwinded threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Ioeth's reinsertion, as I'm pretty sure he didn't look into the matter as far back as i did and I'd like to see Djln's explanation for the copy and paste job myself. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Djln, if this is the case I feel I should let you know that the manipulation or movement of other users' talk page messages is generally discouraged. If that thread was initiated on Fasach Nua's talk page, there is no reason to move it en masse to an article talk page. To answer your original quesiton, Fasach Nua is not an administrator, and as such has no power to block any user. However, your edits were improper, so the warning was justified, if a bit harsh. You can of course remove the warning from your talk page, but please remember that this sort of content manipulation is not acceptable. Thanks for fixing that up, Theresa knott! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Fasach talk page was relevant to the discussion at at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA). Fasnach is a menace who is trying impose his political opinions on pages about a national football team and football players. Wiki needs to reprimand him about his behaviour which is very negative. His is seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki to the point I am considering quitting it all together. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that the discussion on Fasach's talk page was relevant to the article; altering other users' talk page messages is inappropriate. If you feel that Fasach is acting inappropriately, please seek try to resolve the situation with that user civilly or seek mediation, as it seems that you two are having a disagreement that can likely be resolved; ANI is not the place for it, though. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Loeth, you have got it completely wrong, I did not alter his talk page in anyway. All I did was transfer a relevant discussion from one talk page to another. How exactly is that inappropriate. Fasnach has only objected because another editor expressed a similar view on his talk page as I did at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA) and he did not like it. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's inappropriate because you moved other users' comments from one talk page to another. The discussion was taking place on Fasach's talk page, and that's where those users left the comments. Moving those comments to another talk page makes it look as though the discussion was taking place there, which it was not. It may not be obvious, but doing that misrepresents those users, which is why copying the thread was inappropriate. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is you are moving peoples comments from the environent in which they were posted, and in changing context you are possibly changing meaning. I repeatidly invited Padraig to contribute to the Ireland page, and he doesnt want to that is his choice. There is no problem with you copying your own comments between talk pages, but 'only your own comments Fasach Nua (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Fasach Nua, what I have to say is rather trivial since this seems to have been resolved. I think you might have left a disruption warning for Djln instead of a vandalism warning. Clearly Djln should not copied these comments from your talk page, much less without at least mentioning the source in the edit summary. I still don't get how Djln thought this would be helpful, but it wasn't vandalism even though I understand how it felt like that to you. The pith being, calling this vandalism might have distracted others from digging into what was going on (which is to say, since the edit wasn't vandalism, Ioeth restored it without looking further). Happily, Theresa Knott had the patience and care to do this and found it was an unhelpful and misleading copy-paste of comments from a user's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right a disruption warning would have been more appropriate, and a vandal template was just laziness on my part. I never thought it was vandalism, but I did think it wasn't far off it (especially as the user had done it for a second time). The warning was given on my part to signify to the user that a line had been crossed in terms of reasonable behaviour, I have since removed the warning. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fasnach, you telling me I have crossed the line, just makes me laugh. Your behaviour over the past month is beyond belief and a disgrace to Wikipedia. You behave like you own the place. I also smiled at the fact you admitted you are lazy. I can tell by your research that this is true. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not Bite each other. And we are not Buzzkilling anyone. Just miscommunication and inapporpriate Netiquettes at worse. Shake hand and make up..:) Igor Berger (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nostradamus1[edit]

Nostradamus1 (talk · contribs) is, despite my repeated attempts to direct him to the guidelines in WP:CAT that indicates that generally, an article should not belong to both a parent category and a subcategory, misstating the situation and making improper claims about my edits. (See Talk:Qilibi Khan.) I'd like for someone else to review the situation and to warn/block him/her as you see fit. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute, which does not belong here. Also, see the Blocking Policy, and note that the user hasn't done anything to warrant a block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I see his latest edits as personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you be more specific on which edits?--Crossmr (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance[edit]

There seems to be more drama at this article, with cross-allegations of defamation and possible violations of WP:3RR. I got a message on my talk page at [14]. Could a neutral sysop look at this please? Bearian (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about having personal contact information on user page[edit]

A new user placed a lot of personal contact information on their user page, mainly home and mobile phone numbers. I've blanked that from their page, but I'm wondering if the history should be deleted, too? I'd rather not place the diff here, in case I'm just being overly paranoid, but if an admin agrees, just drop me a note on my talk page and I'll give you the diff. Thanks. Yngvarr 12:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user is a minor, delete and explain to them why it's a bad idea, if they are major just blank and tell them, in my opinion. The user might wish not to be anonymous. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An admin took care of it, under WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Yngvarr 12:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight[edit]

I'll be offline for most of the weekend as usual. I've been keeping an eye on Mark Speight which may become the target for a spate (sorry, couldn't help myself) of vandalism, as he's just become the subject of some lurid and unfortunate news in the UK. As a kids' TV presenter, and a BBC man to boot, this will no doubt attract the Red Tops, so I suspect this will become a very big story.

I've slapped on a current tag but for now there's nothing like enough activity to need protection... but the news is still very fresh. Please can some other admins keep an eye on it for the next couple of days at least. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PS The redlink Natasha Collins may well turn blue and require similar watching, although sadly there's no BLP issues there. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Informed of possible sockpuppet[edit]

I appreciate that I should be doing this on the sockpuppet reporting page, but I do not know enough about the case to be able to fill it in. Earlier today, I posted a warning on User:82.83.130.148 about assuming good faith. I got the following reply on my talk page:

Thank you for your advice. I did first assume good faith, but the edits of User:Polysynaptic have only the purpose to falsify facts. He not only deletes scholastic sources and ignores them (for example in the articles al-Farabi and Seljuq dynasty), he even creates alternative articles to already existing ones. That's what he did here. Although the article al-Biruni exists and has a very good shape, he created a second one only for the pupose of claiming him Turk. He also falsified the article Ulugh Beg, again claiming that he was a Turk (while Britannica 1911 says something different: [15]). Simply calling Ulugh Beg a "Timurid" (that was the name of his dynasty) is the best and most neutral solution. User:Polysynaptic registered on December 30th, but he is no new user. His edits are extremely biased toward and based Pan-Turkism, he is deleting sources, ignoring scholastic sources, and he falsifies sources. I believe that he is a sockpuppet of some other (banned) user. Maybe of User:Moorudd whose IP was blocked last week because of racist insults against Iranians: [16]. And he is again at it: [17]. Checkuser has confirmed that the IPs are those of User:Moorudd: [18]. The edits of Moorudd and Polysynaptic are very similar: Moorudd vs. Polysynaptic Some admin should help out.

I then (on the anon user's page) posted a request for them to report it to the sockpuppet report page, along with a suggestion that they register. On my page, I received the following response.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I will probably register. But I would appreciate it, if you report him this time so I can learn how to do it. I will be off Wikipedia for a few days, then I will (maybe) register. Thank you very much for your help.

To be honest, I don't know a great deal about sockpuppetry, and so would be useless in investigating the case. Could someone please investigate it? StephenBuxton (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeps posting nonsense editing[edit]

Resolved: All Quiet on the Western Front

82.29.5.197 keeps posting non factual and is being rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevardonrushes (talkcontribs) 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he's posting unsouced, that's not the same as unfactual although it is getting to the stage of being a slow burning edit war. Can you provide diffs of him being rude please? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
here are the only things he's said on this IP, which I think are a long way from being actionable beyond WP:CIVIL advice. He's a new editor, so I've left him a "welcome" so he can familiarise himself with our policies. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User Sia34[edit]

I seem to be having some difficulties with this user in the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14_Persian_Gulf mediation. While mediation can be difficult at times, I am wondering why this user feels the need to be uncivil, making personal attacks on me simply because I (politely) disagree with his assertions. The user appears to be a SPA based upon his contributions thus far to the community, and thusly, I have tried to point out that we focus on the edits, and not the editors, all without success. The personal attacks (1, 2, 3) seem to be escalationg in both frequency and incivility. Additionally, the user has actively sought out a meatpuppet to support the filing of an RfC, presumably an attempt to eliminate me as a voice of dissent in the Persian Gulf mediation discussion.
Any assistance in helping to calm this user down would be both helpful and instructive. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside eyes and admin review requested: Strider12 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is actually more of a plea for help. I previously raised the issue of Strider12 (talk · contribs) at AN/I here. Briefly, this is a single-purpose account with a clear conflict of interest, dedicated to editing the disputed entity of post-abortion syndrome and promoting its main proponent, David Reardon. My previous AN/I post centered on his tendentious editing, canvassing, edit-warring, constant combativeness, etc. There was discussion from outside admins of a topic ban vs. a week's block, but nothing came of it.

Since that time, Strider12's behavior has continued, with the following new wrinkles:

  • Proposing a massive rewrite of WP:WEIGHT to serve his needs ([19], [20]), along with forum-shopping his dispute at WT:NPOV ([21])
  • Tendentious editing of WP:NPOV itself: [22]
  • Turning his usertalk page into a "sandbox" consisting of a POV fork of his "preferred" version of Post-abortion syndrome article. He has helpfully titled his user-talk page version "An Unpurged Work in Progress" and writes: "I do not want any of the POV pushers who are into purging verifiable information to alter this draft. This draft is only for those who truly wish to collaborate on an objective article... I have mostly concentrated to date on inserting missing material rather than cleaning up some of the nonsensical inferences which appear to have been inserted by high school students or Planned Parenthood interns."
  • In response to the issue of conflict-of-interest, avoids question and suggests that other editors are paid employees of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc ([23]).
  • Continued edit-warring, most recently resulting in the protection of post-abortion syndrome (which has never before been necessary in the history of this contentious article)
  • Continually denigrates the New York Times Magazine and PBS as "clearly pro-choice" and biased ([24]), while simultaneously addding material sourced to priestsforlife.org or other highly partisan pro-life newsletters for "balance" ([25]).
  • Outside opinions have been solicited in this RfC; they pointed up Strider12's issues with soapboxing and tendentious editing.

I'm asking for anything here: outside eyes on the affected articles, administrative review, whatever. Personally I feel that this is an editor with a determinedly uncollaborative approach (as evidenced by the usertalk page fork), tendentious habits, a conflict of interest which they are unable to surmount (while describing other editors as sockpuppets or Planned Parenthood interns), disrespect for WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT, and violations of WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE. The article needs to be improved, but it's impossible with a single-purpose tendentious agenda warrior operating unrestrained. I think that a topic ban is warranted, but at this point I'm mostly tired of banging my head against this particular wall and would welcome any and all outside input. Please. MastCell Talk 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article draft on his talk page is a definite problem. I've told him that it should be moved to a subpage, and that I'll do it for him if he doesn't know how. (Left implicit is that I'll do it for him if he fails to understand the need.) We should also help this editor with his difficulties understanding WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope that's possible. My concern is that he's already had extensive feedback from uninvolved editors, RfC's, and even editors explicitly sympathetic to his POV ([26], [27]) - all to the effect that his tactics are unconstructive. He's ignored all of that feedback, choosing to ascribe it to sockpuppets, Planned Parenthood employees, and the like. I'm not sure what else will get the message across. MastCell Talk 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(cutting in) Raymond Arritt, I have already told him before how to create a sandbox. Although his response was hostile, he does have a sandbox at his user page. Check his talk page history. миражinred 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I second the call for administrative review, outside eyes, ect... However I do so from a different perspective. I feel that there is frustration with one of the particular articles in question David Reardon and that frustration extends to BOTH sides of the dispute. I believe that the article as written is NOT WP:NPOV and there are serious problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BATTLE and I believe that these issues extend to the opposite side of the dispute as Strider12. I believe outside intervention and mediation to develop consensus on the talk page would be a welcome and refreshing at this point. There must be a way to make the article fit with WP:NPOV. The situation as it currently stands is completely unacceptable. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
The article certainly needs to be improved. I'm not talking about content per se here. What I'm saying is that it is essentially impossible to make real progress with a heavily tendentious single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the article's subject sitting on it. Mediation only works with good-faith editors whose primary interest is improving the encyclopedia. I don't see how mediation is going to succeed with an editor who, 500 edits and innumerable warnings in, still can't restrain himself from ascribing all opposition he meets to Planned Parenthood employees and "abortionists" dedicated to "purging" the article of his chosen sources. Look at his user talk page - he's created a content fork from which he explicitly disinvites anyone who doesn't share his extreme POV. Mediation is not what's called for. MastCell Talk 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We are in complete agreement that the article needs to be improved. I cannot speak for Strider12 here, but I suspect that the frustration felt stems from a perceived bias and violation of WP:NPOV in the current editing. I believe that the user sees the article as slanted from a pro-choice perspective. Much of that is listed on the talk page for the article. Is there not a way to bring independent 3rd party eyes to the article and talk pages and develop consensus? If so, why do we do that? Are you suggesting that the user will not under any circumstances work with independent editors to develop consensus? Why not see if it will work? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
On reviewing the article and talk pages, it's clear that Strider12 doesn't understand WP:SYN, or has chosen to ignore it. The article is supposed to be about Post-abortion syndrome as such. What he's doing is assembling a bunch of journal articles that discuss consequences of abortion for the woman's health -- which do not discuss post-abortion syndrome as such -- and then using those to build a case that the syndrome exists. It's a common mistake of novice editors, and an especially common mistake of novice editors that are on a mission to disseminate The TruthTM. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(@ Ghostmonkey57) I am saying that Strider12 has made it clear that s/he will not under any circumstances work with editors whose POV disagrees with his/her own ([28]). As to ways to bring in independent eyes, yes - a content RfC was filed on post-abortion syndrome. The responding independent, 3rd party, outside editor came to the conclusion that Strider12 "has a clear POV that you so far have not been able to control. You're not here to improve the quality of the article or work with others towards balancing both sides. You're looking to steer this article in one clear direction in order to make sure your point-of-view is the one most prominently represented." As you're heavily involved in editing these articles, you no doubt saw it. Similarly, User:The Evil Spartan, explicitly sympathetic to Strider12's POV, warned him several times about his tactics to no avail. The question is really how many outside opinions we need to solicit before accepting them. MastCell Talk 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I can only speak for the David Reardon article. I've not made a single edit on the post-abortion syndrome article, and I have no plans of editing there. My comments are limited explicitly to the David Reardon article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
Contrary to MastCell's assertion, I have repeatedly tried to work with people and have made clear my intent to not blank other peoples' contributions. I also object to many of her characterizations of the issues above. As just one example, she misleads when she says I am pushing a biased source by referencing priestsforlife.org. I wasn't referencing a propaganda page from priests for life or even a commentary. It just happened to be the first site I found that had a copy of Surgeon General Koop's letter and it was linked solely so readers could read Koop's letter. Rather than simply finding a more neutral site with Koop's letter, MastCell supported editors in blanking it so that readers are deprived the chance to easily find what Kooop wrote in it's entirety. Perhaps I erred in not realizing earlier that while pro-choice web site references are allowed, pro-life ones are verbotten, even if they only include the text of a Surgeon General's letter much cited in this article. That is just one example of how MastCell's allegations above are half-truths designed to paint me as the the problem rather than his own POV pushing.
Also, I clearly object to the characterization that I am the source of the problem when MastCell and others continue to delete veriable information simply because it goes against their POV push. Take two clear examples. They correctly cite Stotland as asserting in a commentary that abortion trauma is a myth. A fine quote to underscore the controversy. But they also keep deleting references to Stotland's subsequent article in 1998 in which she describes her own experince with a case of significant delayed post-abortion trauma. Why this objection to balance.
Another example, a chief issue of this article is about PTSD and abortion. And I provided a very recent study from South Africa looking exactly at PTSD scales following abortion. And almost immediately the reference was edited to remove all the information about PTSD and to make it appear that it was only discussing anaesthesia options.
I have repeatedly told MastCell and others that I am open to collaboration, but collaboration means INCLUDING verifiale information that people contribute to an article and INTEGRATING those contributions into a smooth whole. Deleting material in toto is simply not acceptable, nor is the excuse that "my group of experts" reflect the WEIGHT which justifies my deleting your studies and experts acceptable.
The ironic part is that MastCell's weight argument hinges on two articles (Adler & Stotland's) that are over fifteen years old, and these are used to blank out any number of studies and articles published in the last seven years.
Per Raymond's suggestion, I've looked at WP:SYN. I disagree that I am violating the principles described. But it is a principle being violated by many other editors. In fact, I try very hard to comply with the style advocated in the SYN piece in the example of Jones. For example, including Stotland's subsequent opinions, as noted above, is clearly relevent and not a synthesis of new ideas...just a fair reflection of her ideas.
Further, given the hostility of several editors to peer reviewed studies by Reardon, Colemen, Rue, Cougle, Shuping and others (as evidenced in their openly discussed purging of these "unreliable" sources...even though published in peer reviewed journals), I haven't even tried to referance these verifable sources in preference to showing that even self-identified pro-choice experts do not agree with the general denial of post-abortion emotional complications which permeates this article. In other words, I'm trying to demonstrate where the WEIGHT of expert opinion really lies and I've invited MastCell to produce more evidence of the WEIGHT besides her old peer reviewed articles and her three recent popular media articles which are clearly advocacy driven. I've not advocated for the removeal of these sources, even though I think they have little weight. I've only been attempting to include other material that has at least equal, if not more, weight. It is this that MastCell and other appear to oppose. They seem to dislike the fact that t