Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive404

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Asd124[edit]

I believe Asd124 (talk · contribs) may be a sockpuppet, though I don't know how it would be determined what user they are a sockpuppet of, exactly, so I can't add this to suspected sock puppets, and the situation isn't serious enough for checkuser. I believe this user is a sockpuppet because of this diff, where their first contribution, they add a question to a user's RfA, specifically relating to sockpuppetry and administrator abuse, specifically a line where they state "This is not a joke question because the issue of sock versus admin abuse is common in Wikipedia." —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like an SPA asking a loaded question. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Would a SPA ask such questions if it weren't a sockpuppet? Or could the account have been made so that the user could contribute to RfA? Are anonymous users able to contribute to RfA? —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Without looking at any diffs, the answer is Yes. Anonymous users (aren't we all, anyway?) are allowed to contribute to RfAs. In the discussion section, or asking a question. The only thing IP's are not allowed to do is cast a !vote in support/neutral/opposition. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly a sock. I said SPA because there is clearly some history behind the question along with a singleminded reason for creating the account. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the user hasn't made any other edits, so there's doesn't appear to be any need for a block, even if the user is a sockpuppet. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unclear on Reason for Action[edit]

Hi, I seem to have been banned for making this AN/I report.[1] I'm not exactly certain why bringing this post[2] to an Administrators attention is a Ban Offense. I was completely unaware of this ban as my IP changed and I had confirmed edits at my new IP at 14:07, 16 April. This was hours after ThuranX's post in the section at 01:57, 16 April and many hours before I was blocked at 21:35, 16 April.

My IP automatically changing 7 1/2 hours before being blocked has now been used as the basis by Arcayne for a full press to be banned for "Block Evasion". After his current attack [3] against me on AN/I failed he went back to the original Admin on his talk page and lobbied there. I am now banned.

I have abided by the Wiki rules and since being informed of the ban and discovering where the block that Arcayne was referring to came from I have only posted to AN/I and directly to the Administrators involved. I have honored and respected the rules and customs of this institution and tried to speak with civility and reason - I am disheartened by the lack of protection and dismayed by my sentence for having used the correct channels to civilly address my concerns.

Arcaynes ruthless and deceptive obsession, and his ability to somehow always find someone, somewhere to try another avenue of approach with is troubling.

I thank you for your time. 75.58.32.90 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you use {{unblock|your reason here}} on your Talk page to request for an appeal. And for your information, your block is lasting for 7 days. GaryKing (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This IP has never been blocked per block log [4]. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the person's post, the user has stated that their IP address is dynamic. Their banned IP can be found here. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Viriditas[edit]

Resolved

Can someone check this out. The articles I tagged for notability which unbeknown to me where related to the user(or the user choose to take an interest in) are Klaatu barada nikto, Religious Reform in Antebellum America, My Wife and Kids, Cadillac V8 engine and Volkswagen advertising history. It seems to have blown over now, but I thought it useful to raise notification of the situation. SunCreator (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goody, a content dispute about a content dispute... From a quick review the tags were incorrect, and in one case at least replaced the appropriate tag. However, this is not a sysop matter and you should take it up with Viriditas (who appears to be correct, and from whom you may be advised why). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read up on WP:NOTE, as it seems you have a misapprehension of the guideline. It boggled my mind that you would tag any of those with notability templates, especially an article about an engine. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE. "Notability requires objective evidence." WP:NOBJ. "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: ... Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag." SunCreator (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Very true, but please be aware of WP:COMMON. Articles on a specific V8 engine or a four year running television show do not need to be tagged as though they exhibit questionable notability. As the excerpt you quoted says, it would have been better to look for sources anyway. Would you place a notability tag on a stub of a town in Italy if it didn't have any citations?? Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In light of a number of places that have gone to Afd for WP:HOAX like Albania, Colorado Afd, today and Wimbledon, New Zealand, yesterday and the ease of which places names can be located on google maps, verifiability is the issue so tagging would seem quite sensible, else it could be tomorrows Afd. SunCreator (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've bolded an important part of the bit you quoted - "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,". Dan Beale-Cocks 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Remember, sometimes it's better to follow the spirit of a guideline instead of the the letter. I understand that your tagging was in good faith. However, be wary of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
sometimes it's better to follow the spirit of a guideline instead of the the letter. Maybe it's just me, but that's the first time I've seen that bit of common sense stated so explicity. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of attack edit summaries[edit]

Resolved

Swav swan (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked for a stream of edits with attacking edit summaries, but the summaries are all still there in his contribution record. There must be some way that can be obliterated? JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask for oversight. Rudget 16:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a recurring case treated above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_edit_summaries.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oversight requested. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
...and offensive edit summaries have been removed. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot (STBotI) malfunction?[edit]

Resolved: Thread starter has posted that this has been resolved. Gary King (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that STBotI may be malfunctioning. I noticed that in the past few minutes the bot, run by ST47, is tagging free images from Commons with {{di-no fair use rationale}}. Examples: [5], [6], Image:1JPY.JPG, Image:1 2 3 Willow Road Hampstead London 20050924.JPG. Images that have valid rationales are also being tagged with {{di-no fair use rationale}} [7]. I left a message on the bot's talk page, but ST47 appears to be out. Could an admin take a look and possibly pause the bot's operations until ST47 returns? Bláthnaid 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, ST47 is back. He replied on his talk page just after I posted this. Bláthnaid 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thenewracistmagician[edit]

Resolved: User was blocked Gary King (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough said? AndyJones (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, WP:UAA and WP:AIV are better places for this. Mr.Z-man 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Request deletion of a user subpage[edit]

Resolved: Done --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I request that User:Nwwaew/BJAODN be deleted. This was resurrected temporarily to help out with another Wiki, but we no longer need the page. I'd tag it for speedy deletion, but it's fully protected to prevent editing. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Zenasprime[edit]

Please investigate editor and administrator "bullying" tactics. Rather then discussion, these editors/administrators resort to non consensus revisions, edits and warnings to good faith edits in order to quash any dissension. See Above mentioned User talk for examples. Thanks. Zenasprime (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me give some detail into the incident. User:Snottythetroll gave warnings to User:Orangemike‎[8], for something which Mike never did. The user was also a potential violator of 3RR, for which he was given a notice by me but he replied back by warning me not to bite new editors. Then after the user got blocked for disruptive editing, he claimed that
"...this(block) was a personal request by the relevant parties to an administrator favorable to them who then quashed a "troublesome" user for them. Wikipedia, at least from this editor's point of view, seems to be governed, not by mutually agreed upon policy, but by gangs of internet thugs..."
There User:Zenasprime joined him and left this comment at his talk page,
"Be constructive instead of destructive. Just because the users in question have no ethical values in relation to be a constructive member of wiki doesn't mean you should be so also."
and also reverted edits here back to edits of above user, for which he was given a warning by me. After which he accused me and reported the matter here. --SMS Talk 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The Admin to which the user is referring is User:Swatjester and the user to which he is referring is myself. SMS Talk 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the warnings for my comments were in regards to Wikipedia:Civil which I dispute as being unwarranted. Also, my edits were done in Wikipedia:Goodfaith, which in my belief should not warrant accusation of Wikipedia:vandalism. Such tactics are not in good faith and seek only to punish dissenting points of view, a wholly destructive practice. Zenasprime (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliographies[edit]

There's been a number of "Annotated bibliographies" created in the last two days:

  1. U.S. Defense Budget Trends over the past 50 Years: An Annotated Bibliography
  2. High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography
  3. Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography
  4. Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography
  5. Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography

They have all been created by different authors but follow a similar pattern. These seem an unusual article format and my interest was piqued when I noticed there were at least these five. They are problematic because they fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, and each one has been at least PRODded by various other editors. There's no evidence of anything untoward going on here; it could be a coincidence, or if there is a link it could be a school project. But I thought I might flag it up for people to keep an eye on. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of the five is currently on AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree these are problematic. I once considered making such a list for mathematical logic texts, but decided against it because the criteria for inclusion are so broad as to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Any annotation is likely to be original research, unless we have published reviews of the articles to refer to. But I think the WP:NOT issue is more central. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is another created in the same time-frame and following the same pattern:

  1. The effectiveness of neurofeedback as a treatment for Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder : An annotated bibliography

I have also taken this one to AFD. Ros0709 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Those really look like something created for a school project devised by a person who doesn't really understand what Wikipedia is. Just delete and leave a note to the authors that if they need the content they can request to get it userfied. - Bobet 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All six were created within a few days, and for all six, this was the first and only creation. One placed a link in an existing article, and none responded on their talk pages. I agree that this looks like a school project. I also don't see any of the usual POV pushing or promotional overtones here, rather it was probably devised by, as Bobet suggested, someone not familiar with WP. I think that once the AfDs close and the articles are deleted (almost for sure), we should leave something more than the usual note on their talk pages, per WP:BITE. Even better, userfy with a note. — Becksguy (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another two are appearing in search results now:

  1. Middle Eastern Governments: An Annotated Bibliography
  2. The Convergence of IAS with GAAP: An Annotated Bibliography

Already PRODded; I'll also take them to AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Almost all of these have been created by separate WP:SPAs. What effort to engage with these authors has taken place? Have any responded? --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also:

  1. Annotated Bibliography: The Future of International Accounting Standards

User:RHaworth has explicitly asked the authors of three of the articles if this is a school project here and a question about whether two of the articles were linked was asked [here]. No responses were given. Ros0709 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the text they aren't even trying to be an article, some of them are just notes the person has written for themselves and includes things like "this will be excellent material for my essay." I have written to one or two of them asking politely if they are the same person, I stopped short of saying that their content is inappropriate for wiki, until I got the verdict of the AfDs for the two of these articles I've come across. (the divorce, and ADHD ones.)Merkin's mum 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
These aren't the only creation for at least one of them, if you look at User_talk:InterserveVB it mentions another article of his that was deleted. It just doesn't show up in his contribs because the article's gone. Merkin's mum 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned here that these look like school projects. In two of these, Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography and Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography, the author put their name and email at the end. Both are University of Florida addresses. I'm going to send them both an email and ask if they're a class assignment. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I got a reply back, it is indeed a school assignment. The author stated that they would fail if it was deleted before May 2; I replied back that there was a problem, specifically that all of them were liable to be deleted within a few days. I also told them to have their professor contact me with any other questions; if they do, I'll point them to WP:NOT. Can we userfy them for these users, or is that a WP:NOT#WEBSPACE concern? I'm leaning toward the latter on this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that these are intended to form articles (some of them) otherwise they would be written as an essay/articles, not called an "annotated bibliography." These are just collections of their own notes, primarily for themselves. Unless they are intended to one day be an article, they shouldn't be userfied. Some extra leeway/encouragement should be given to User:InterserveVB because he has other contributions mentioned on his talkpage, though they've been deleted. Perhaps an admin can view his deleted article Joseph R. Grutta to see what it was like. Merkin's mum 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me add that academics are trying to find ways to use Wikipedia in their classrooms; this is certainly an example of how not to do it. Considering how academics organize class assignments, I wouldn't be surprised if the bibliographies were followed up by articles on those topics, which would be a good thing for Wikipedia's content and for its credibility among academics.
If Jeremy or anyone else who has established e-mail connections could get the address of their professor, it might help to point him to this discussion.
If the prof. planned this project to end by writing articles, he should have had his students start by writing stubs consisting of only a bibliography on which to build their articles. Maybe an appropriate response would be to rename the present annotated bibliography articles as topical stubs. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd imagine the professor didn't know about wikipedia guidelines, and was thinking it was a place to post, well, whatever you write. In any event, it's going to be pretty much all or none with the deletions, and I doubt he'd give everybody in the class an "F", so I'm not too worried for the students. Hopefully the professor will get in contact with me, or come here, so they can get an idea of what the guidelines are. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Luton (now Bedfordshire)[edit]

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bedfordshire has been editted many times by people at the University of bedfordshire. My attempts to balance the discussion seems to upset a number of other editors who might also have connections with the University.

I do not know what tools you have available to check that they are not using Wikipedia for advertising but http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=University+of+Bedfordshire might help Alfred Vella (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong (and if so apologies in advance), this all rings a bell with me. I'm sure that user (talk) (maybe not under that name) was warned off that article last year because he his edits were WP:UNDUE and did not represent WP:NPOV. I'm sure has all been discussed before here. This ring any bells with anyone else? --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
His userpage needs urgent attention (WP:SOAP, WP:NOT a battleground etc) I would strongly recommend that potential staff and students avoid Luton (and therefore Bedfordshire) university like the plague until it is honest about its past. , If you have any tales to tell about Luton (preferably with evidence), I would like to hear from you. I have been battling since 1997 to have the wrongs done acknowledged but the UK is not a very open country with lots of things hidden from its people. (Plus contact details). Yes this is the editor I was thinking of. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for people to collect evidence for off-site grudges or campaigns. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The deeper I look into this, the less I like it --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I now remember why the name rang a bell in connection to wikipedia. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an ongoing edit war between Alfred Vella and university staff. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe but that user page is a violation of policy, we don't allow people to use user space to run campaigns. --87.113.17.166 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I had already removed the soapy content from his user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
87.113.17.166 seems to have joined just to get into this argument. Is this allowed? Alfred Vella (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As one of the regular editors on Bedfordshire Uni, I just want to make it clear i have no connection with the univeristy, and in my view any editing by university staff is not that significant. However it would be usful if someone with no connection to the article could oversee it to try to avoid some of the 'edit-wars' and personal campaiging which has dogged it from time to time. The articlewas protected for a peroid of time a year back which certainly helped.GazMan7 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicide[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: FT2 contacted police at 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Police state all is OK, parents now informed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-listed from above, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm. I think we should follow-up on this, but I am unsure of the proper channels. KnightLago (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Current practice is to indef the account and phone the authorities. Sceptre (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the authorities are in Australia it appears, but could be anywhere. A CU needs to be run and is pending. Who should be contacted at the WMF? KnightLago (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I was involved with a shooting threat that was very convincing the other day and sided with phoning the authorities. However, this one is a bit of a tougher call. The user made an edit right after creating that page which appears to be sound in mind. If this is a practical joke, this editor is going to get into some serious trouble considering that the police may be brought into this.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should err on the side of caution. What can it hurt. Is anyone in Australia? KnightLago (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I sent an email to info at Wikimedia. Hope this is the correct place. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I just requested attention from anyone at IRC who can help. Malinaccier (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Left a message with User:Netsnipe, first Australian admin off the top of my head. Khukri 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok good. I blocked and protected the user/user page. KnightLago (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have done what we can at this point. Now we must wait, and hope for the best. Tiptoety talk 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess the only thing to do is keep an eye out for a CU and send them over to do the request. I will post if I hear back from the WMF. KnightLago (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I just left a note on User_talk:FT2#Need_urgent_help:_suicide_note‎ who appears to be on-line and have CU privs. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the RFCU: (redacted - privacy). Thanks Khukri. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Netsnipe is active. Try an admin at WP:AWNB. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a note over there asking for an Australian admin or user to come over here. But we still need the CU info to be of any use. KnightLago (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Merged from above[edit]

An individual made this (link deleted) now-deleted (oversighted - FT2) statement, presumably from Sydney. Hard to tell if it's serious, or where any contacts should be made, but I didn't want to let it pass. Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm clueless. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Suicide threat from a kid in Sydney. No real way to find them, but someone in Australia may have a better idea. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I left this short comment on their talk page informing them that threats like that are not taken lightly and can result in serious measures being taken. Lets pray it was just a joke.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. His other edit doesn't imply any problem. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right answer. Can Checkuser done to contact the appropriate authorities? We're talking about someone's life potentially. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a classic cry for help, joke or not must be followed up on. Will leave a message RCU and if I can get IP will chase it through normal channels. Though it may be better if someone from the foundation got involved or had input. What's the correct channels? Khukri 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Have raised RCU, and seriously think this should be followed up. If it's a hoax oh well no harm done for a bit of effort, if it's not .......Khukri 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just transcluded the CU request as it looks like Khukri forgot. I am unsure of who to contact from here. Who at should the foundation should be notified?
Looks like all that can be done is to wait back for a CU to check it out, there is no way of knowing where this user is editing from. Tiptoety talk 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Conversation is continuing below, I sent the WMF an email, and I agree, from here there is not much else to do. Hopefully a CU is around. KnightLago (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The IP traces to Optus in New South Wales, AU, who are based in Sydney. The user - an alleged and likely minor - has posted what is claimed to be a full name and age. I've oversighted it, for the user's own privacy (it mentions name and age), which part conflicts with the need to find someone to report this to, but also prevents the minor having this note following him around if it were for example not serious or even a hoax. The IP appears to be dynamic. If any user has more ideas what to do (eg calling NSW police) then I'll be glad to pass the name on to whatever external contact is relevant, for the purposes of actual action. There is no other connected user under a different name; the IP would need passing to the ISP for tracing. probably a NSW police matter. Anyone got the phone #? Information available - stated name, stated age, rough area, ISP, and various IP/timestamp combinations. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Federal Police - www.afp.gov.au - +61 2 9955 4923 Toddst1 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the note, but if a serious looking note has been made then the right thing to do is definitely to contact authorities. --Apis 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney; Wikipedians in Sydney (capital of NSW). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am australian, can someone please provide the content of the edit and the ip (and any other info checkusers) to me via email and I can contact NSW police if we think it is serious. ViridaeTalk 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in Sydney - I can call the police. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Make it crimestoppers - you will get a better response IMO 1800333000 ViridaeTalk 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Have either FT2 or Todd made the call? KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Cas is...although any call would be kinda useless without access to the info FT2 oversighted (thus hoping he emailed it to one of them). Not sure Crimestoppers is the best one to call, but then, I haven't seen the content. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted NSW police. They have all the details we have, now. I've also asked that they let us know, if they are able, if all's ok. For future reference NSW state police is ++ (0)2 9956 3199. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! Thanks for everyones great and quick response. Tiptoety talk 01:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, did they need a copy of the threat as I noticed you oversighted it? KnightLago (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
They have the full text, including stated name, stated date of birth, stated place of birth, ISP, IP, and times logged in. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Let us know if you hear anything. KnightLago (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Great.....and resolved. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks: in North America I would have known what to do/ who to contact, but NSW in the middle of their night, not so much. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's 11.25am in NSW... — E talk aussie 01:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Now. Not when the edit was made nine hours ago. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets just hope the police find the kid. KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm stating the obvious here but: things like this should always be taken serious, there's no use pondering whether it's a joke or not when someones life might be in danger. And even if it turns out to not be urgent it might be very good it is brought to the surroundings attention. Hope it works out well! --Apis 01:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Might I note that many policies have been attempted to be created on this subject, but they always end up as guidelines/essays. See WP:TOV. Tiptoety talk 02:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people think there's a need to report this in the first place. Presumably, people are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether or not there is any value to them in continuing to live. Who are we to interfere? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because sometimes people aren't "in their right mind" and would not commit suicide otherwise. Surely if dead people could come back and regret killing themselves 99% of the time they would. I could keep rambling on but I won't. --Ryan  talk  03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not our decision to make. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the writings of Thomas Szasz. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes people want to help other people (Crazy idea, I know). Some people feel they have a moral obligation to help a fellow human when that person is in danger. If you don't feel this way then fine. But don't patronize others for wanting to preserve life and maybe help someone who needs help. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, if you do not want to protect another's life than dont. But do not get in the way of those who do. Tiptoety talk 03:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Who are you to force your so-called "help" upon him whether he wants it or not? Who are you to decide what's best for him? It's not about wanting to "protect" another life or not--it's about respecting another's right to end his own life on his terms, when he wants to. I wholly object to anyone who attempts to interfere with anyone's rights, and I damn well will get in the way of those who try. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Update - email from NSW police - child located and is safe and well. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


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

Another legal threat on Talk:Giovanni di Stefano[edit]

Another legal threat has been issued against editors (including myself) and Wikipedia on the Talk:Giovanni di Stefano page, this time by a registered account User:Pnazionale. I've sent an e-mail with the link to the diff to Mike Godwin. Avruch T 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • For the record, here is my advice for any editor tempted to take up cudgels against Mr. di Stefano: Run away, very fast, and keep running. He is resourceful, intelligent, rich and a lawyer. This is, in case it was not blindingly obvious, a fearsome combination. Every single edit should e backed by attribution and if possible personally sanctioned by His Holiness the Pope. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked that account for legal threats at any rate. John Reaves 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I've just noticed I was included on that list...John Reaves 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case (I have looked at it) I endorse this block. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been afd'd, I hope it is successful and agree with Guy (well other than re Ratzinger). Thanks, SqueakBox 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Luckily for me and the rest of us, there is a pretty high bar to proving a case of defamation in the US, proving it in Italy will have absolutely no effect on me, I have a couple of friends in the ACLU, and I at least haven't made any edits to the page that added unattributed information ;-) Thanks for taking care of the block, John. Avruch T 01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, note there is an AfD running for this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano. I think the closing admin should consult the WMF before any action is taken. KnightLago (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes well I already said there has been an afd two comments up, sighs. While I ma glad to hear, Avruch, that you feel immune to prosecution I hope that won't allow you to ignore the plight of those less fortunate than yourself. Are you certain that wikipedia is not subject to prosecution. And if not why are you so blase about the plight of others and of the organisation for which we work that you, perhaps, have a role in having created merely, merely because you personally are immune from prosecution in Italy. Your argument would allow any penniless teenage to defame who they wanted because they personally were immune from losing money because they have not made any. For e this argument is not being a good worker for wikipedia, its the "I'm alright, Jack xxxx everyonme else and the organization for which we work" argument. Thanks,
Zee effect of Barrett v. Rosenthal is effectively that if you are in the US and a statement is made by a penniless teenager online there isn't much you can do about it.Geni 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox 02:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment. I think at this point everyone is overreacting. We should not be taking rash steps without guidance from the foundation. Has Mike Godwin even seen the threat, the AfD? Like I said above, the closing admin needs to consult the foundation before taking any action. KnightLago (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? Prosecution? Give me a break. Are you alleging a criminal violation? Because di Stefano isn't. So far, you've said that I have been trying to smear him, that I want to do him harm, and that I lack moral fiber. Now, I'm at risk to prosecution and risking the prosecution of others as well. What is your angle in all this, SqueakBox? Avruch T 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results[edit]

On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.
You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.
Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [9] in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Carl.bunderson voted to not include Afghani and Afghanistani in the info-box in his own poll that he designed to push poll, shows his true intentions. He crosses out other polls that he does not like the results of, he then makes his own poll in a way to push poll, he then votes his own choice. He also claims to keep up the discussions while reverting but he took out all support for Afghanistani. In addition, he has broken 3RR like 20 times now and also insults other users by calling them "blind" "idiot" etc... and he throws around accusations. I think an admin should get involved in this case. 02:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Given he's been 3RR blocked on the article, I'd support further admin intervention. ThuranX (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

user: Carl.bunderson vandalizing Talk:Afghanistan[edit]

Resolved: both editors blocked for 3RR Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

this user is vandalizing this talk page by removing sourced content from it. can someone advise him to stop?

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfghanistan&diff=206828633&oldid=206828349

in addition to vandalizing, he has also borken 3rr in the process.

SwatiAfridi (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR violations can be reported at WP:AN3. Gary King (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Onion Trump[edit]

I just posted this on the deleting admin page but then saw the message he was away on holiday for 7 days - can someone else take care of it please.

Can you undelete this please, it doesn't meet the CSD criteria as per WP:BAND "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." - in this case Richie_Edwards. Exxolon (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You can make your case for undeletion at deletion review. That would probably work best for what you're looking for. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, but for some reason there are three from today at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_20 but only one appearing on the main page at Wikipedia:Deletion review for some reason? Exxolon (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

I reverted this edit made by User:71.145.185.27. He/She then gave me a notice here about what he/she was doing. Is this user's edit vandalism?--RyRy5 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If what the person added is in fact, accurate, then I wouldn't consider it vandalism. Unfortunately, I'm not personally familiar with the subject matter, so someone else will have to pitch in regarding that. Gary King (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, but I'd consider it unnecessary and right on the verge of advertising. Anything more than a brief mention of where the games air is too much. I would have removed it, also. Redrocket (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved Admin look at these admin blocks[edit]

Myself and another editor was blocked by William M. Connolley in an article he was personally edit warring on. I decided to check his block log and see if there were other abuses of administrative powers.

In about 50% of the blocks, William uses his administrative power to block other users he is in edit wars with.

In the past, admin FeliciousMonk and Viridae have reverted and protested about his blocks.

What are the options, other than RfC? Inclusionist (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, you really shouldn't keep reposting this. There's already an RfC open about it. Jtrainor (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it looks like forum shopping to me...--Jaeger123 10:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jaegar. I was just appalled by this behavior. I often feel helpless, like there are two levels of wikipedians: admins/insider veterans and everyone else. The rules don't apply to the admins/insider veterans. The rules clearly state what admins should and shouldn't do, but there doesn't seem to be an effective way to punish abuses like this. My question is sincere.
No need to address Jtainor's comments simply because he is deeply involved in this argument, justifying Williams abuses. Bravo, Jtainor, effective way to shape the comments. Inclusionist (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to reveal identity, violations of WP:HARASS[edit]

The previous report was removed by bot after 24 hours, without any admin comment, and the false personal identity linkage is still not removed from archives. User:Babakexorramdin attempts to reveal a personal identity and falsely associate me with a different physical person.

On April 16th, after my edit of Azerbaijani people, User:Ali doostzadeh left the following edit comment:

Following his edit, and referring to the same source, User:Babakexorramdin leaves this edit comment:

Prior such attempts to link me to the SAME person were made by User:Artaxiad - [10], for which he was banned - [11]. User:Kirill Lokshin subsequently deleted from archives all of references to the full name of person (Javid ...) falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim. The question is how did Babakexorramdin get information to make such claim if Artaxiad is banned for a year now and links are removed from archives for the same period.

In addition, I am also a subject of harassment by User:VartanM - [12] by User:VartanM and by User:Fedayee here - [13]. Note that prior such harassment against User:Ehud Lesar resulted in ArbCom case, where "identity revelations" were proven false, but neither of the perpetrators were punished. Enjoying a complete lenience towards his conduct, VartanM now made another statement on archived ANI report [14]:

  • Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.

I am not sure what entity VartanM represents to turn Wikipedia into personal witch hunt, and mislead others link User:Babakexorramdin to make false personal associations, but please, take a note of WP:HARASSMENT below:

    • WP:HARASSMENT says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself."

I never linked myself to named identity. I have additional evidence I can provide by email. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Ladies and Gentleman meet Atabek. Atabek is a member of two ArbCom cases and is under various enforcements and restrictions. He has re-posted this false report three times already and the above post is a fine example of forum shopping.
Now, just because he copy pasted the same report it doesn't mean that I have to do the same, so here is a link to my last reply[15]. And Atabek please provide evidence of where I reviled your legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. I hope someone notices his disruptive behavior. VartanM (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

VartanM: "on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings." - why User:VartanM - party to two ArbCom cases - spends his Wikipedia editing time stalking and harassing contributor identities (paradoxically contributors associated with a single country, such as User:Ehud Lesar, User:AdilBaguirov or myself)? Is this important for encyclopedia? Atabek (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

from the other page. I do not know Atabek and I do not know why does he have against me, while I have always been nice to him. From other page: I do not know what is this fuzz about. I do not know who vartan or Fadayee or Atabeks are. I know doezen of Javids. Javid means eternal in Persian. I assume it has linguistic ties with the word zendegi, to live *imperative is Zi(v( z, zh and J are interchangeable. You hear much of these slogans in Iran Javid bad this or that, means long live this or that. This is word referred to persons you like or as a gesture in order to calm down people who oppose you. This word is usually used by me as a compliment or attribution, like oh man,. or viva, the same as I say zende bashi. I do not really understand Atabek's commotion about this. Especially that I am in general nice and supportive to/of his edits.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I have an email confirmation that Babakexorramdin meant the name and personality, and I can forward it to Kirill if requested. I do expect the comment to be purged out of Wikipedia, since it clearly violates the privacy of unrelated individual. I also believe that Babakexorramdin's claim, which is clearly the same as claims of banned Artaxiad, which were deleted by Kirill earlier, are connected, especially considering additional accusations made by VartanM and Fedayee, threatening with false identity revelations during Ehud Lesar ArbCom case. These folks need to be explained by way of enforcing WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY to give up personal battleground mentality, and concentrate on topics rather than personalities. Atabek (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It is funny that you talk about email confirmation. Neither Atabek nor I have ever exchanged emails. Again I do not know who Artaxid, Vartan or Fedayee are. I also do not know who Ehud is and have never followed the discussion thereabout. Moreover I do not think that I ever have revealed anyones identity. There are many people here who call me by names other than mine. Is it a big deal? There are dozens of Ali, Hassan, etc... I do not see the fuzz--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC) --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FT2's behaviour[edit]

While I appreciate I generate a huge amount of interest on Wikipedia, comments and amateurish psychoanalysis of me by FT2 are now, in my view manically dangerous and are amounting to personal attack. I have posted this on his page "I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy. I am beginning to feel mentally threatened and attacked by your strange behaviour and posts. Please stop." While I appreciate he is the Arbcom's appointed spokesman such introspection about me, by an unqualified layman which is then published to the internet is damaging not only to me, but to the project. I make no comment on FT2's mental state, but I want an admin or Arb to ask him to desist in his obsessive behaviour towards me. There are 15? Arbs, his interest in me is now beyond a joke, and I am feeling threatened and unnerved by him, not to mention his comments which are preserved on the internet for posterity. I have as much right to feel unthreatened here as anyone else. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, you are a great contributor to WP, but you must avoid taking troll bait, or whatever it is. Take a deep breath and let others investigate the matter, and block or take other action, if necessary. Please take care! Bearian (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Look this is a voluntary project. We're all here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can see you're just pissed off at the arb ruling. I know nothing about you're history, but shit like this shouldn't be posted. This page shouldn't even exist for fucks sake...nor should arbcom...it's just people who want to make bad shit happen to people who have done stuff to them out of spite, that's why this page is here, to report crap like that, not to start it. Forget about it, you're just stirring up drama, go edit the mainspace.--Jaeger123 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm Naerii and I support this comment! 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you ask me, that comment was very inappropriate. I realize you apologized in your edit summary, but the comments you made here were just plain uncivil. Please read WP:CIVIL if you haven't already. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Tough one, this. FT2 is not good at soundbytes, I know what he's trying to achieve, but I am talking to him about this precise issue because I think he needs to do it in a way that will include rather than alienate Giano. Giano is a good litmus test for a lot of things to do with the community; like SPUI he is not easy to get along with, not slow to tell you his views on anything, and can be perceived by those not familiar with him as aggressive or domineering. Giano is, surely, Italian? Are we not aware that Italians have a reputation for being mercurial? I sincerely hope we are not trying to assert that only milquetoasts will be able to edit Wikipedia successfully. If someone is busy, and trying to work something through before the next edit conflict, then maybe they are brusque, and this can sound like aggression. And I can see why Giano is frustrated and feeling persecuted, and I can see that FT2 is trying really hard - and thinking at great length, being FT2 - about how to address a perceived problem without driving Giano away. I think we should see what Geogre's thoughts on this might yield, I believe he may be able to codify what a lot of people are thinking but having trouble articulating. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Jaeger- there is usually no need to swear to a great extent, however strong your feelings. Merkin's mum 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If I behaved like that, I never have, you would all be rightly calling for me to be blocked for ever. I say my piece, unwelcome as it normally is, and I'm on to the next subject. This is get a stuck in rallying the "lets all hate Giano." organized and seemingly condoned campaign. In the last few days I have emailed 2 Arbs with my concerns - neither commented on them. So fine, I am hated in certain quarters, I have broad shoulders, I can cope with that. However, the Arbcom are encouraging this, no one is stopping him, thousands of words, longer than even my most boring FA, all on pure attack Giano are being written by this man. I am feeling personally alienated and personally threatened and attacked. He is obsessed with me, completely obsessed. If the Arbcom won't see that, I hope the community will, and encourage him to stop. Any other editor would have been blocked for such attacks and odd behaviour, am I so wicked and evil that the usual pritections of an editor can no longer be accorded to me - or is this part of a grander plan? Giano (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Guy in that Geogre's thoughts are very often worth hearing... However I have a fairly high confidence I already know what he'll say. Good suggestion nevertheless. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where to place the indent here. Broadly agree. Some of FT2's rambling monologues look just like personal attacks. See my comment on FT2's talk page, and one on Giano's page. I can see how it would come across as threatening. The Rationalist (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Oh yes and if Guy can say Italian can I say North Korean. Some of this stuff is just too creepy. The Rationalist (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You see here is classic example [16] Brown haired girl - never forgiven me for opposing her in the Troubles arbcom, they encourage these people, all they want to see is me gone. Soon they be very lucky. FT2, he is obsessed with me. he neds to stop. Giano (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, some people bear grudges. Fuck 'em. Unwatch their talk pages, and ask them to unwatch yours. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I unwatch her a long time ago, I think she likes being on my page. Giano (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
YAWN! This whole drama between Giano, FT2 & Arbcom is just about as exciting as User GoodDay himself. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So at the end of the day, no Admin or Arb is going to ask FT2 to desist from his worrying, obsessive attacking behaviour. I see. On your own heads' be it then. Don't say I did not try to resolve this through the proper channels. Giano (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Giano, please. I agree with you. I'm disappointed with the behaviour of FT2, whom I supported in his ArbCom election. But be realistic—nothing much is going to eventuate, and you know it (so does everyone else). Please let it drop, put a banner on your talk page that says "FT2, please don't comment here, for everyone's sake", and finish off your Winter Palace article so I can bug you to write about some Romanian ones. Please. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Abecedare[edit]

This user User:Abecedare is not allowing anybody to contribute to article Bhavishya Purana and claiming everybody as banned socks. Note, This user is perhaps an sock puppet of an Admin and locks the pages without notice. Could an admin inform this user to allow people to contribute to article Bhavishya Purana. User seems to be watching that article and reverts any edits made. Further the claims on the article are way off and need to be put in place. --MianJi (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Major sockpuppetry outbreak over there, as detailed here [17]. Redrocket (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with article Bhavishya Purana ? Recently some users user:Aryasamaj and User:Khansye couldnt contribute because of this user Abecedare. --MianJi (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Its funny how this user:Redrocket claims all users as sock puppets of User:DWhiskaZ when this user Redrocket is not even mentioned on DWhiskaZ page or talk contribution nothing. Note - Seems to be another sockpuppet of User Abecedare. --MianJi (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Funny?" Why, I think it's hilarious. You caught me. I've been lurking for an entire year, making more than 5000 edits and just waiting for the day when I could chime in on this argument. Congratulations on seeing through the black shroud of my elaborate deception, Johnny Sock.
To get back to the subject, the article is rife with confirmed sockpuppetry pushing a particular POV. Sockpuppet edits from a banned user are reverted on sight, as is policy. Nothing more to see here. Redrocket (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You know I think I'm hearing some quacking here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
When you have that many confirmed sockpuppets attacking an article as a team, it casts suspicion on any new editors who suddenly create IDs and become experts on a specific subject. Both of those editors (and you) have only been on wikipedia for about sixteen hours, it seems, and all of you started in with the same edits to the same article. It seems a mite fishy, at least from the outside. Redrocket (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This sock puppet goin on about nobody can contribute to articles. this section is for admins to deal with User Abecedare. --MianJi (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For those wondering about the context: This is not a content dispute; it's kookery. The Bhavishya Purana ("Bhavishya" means "future") is a traditional text, last updated some time in the 19th century, with the charming affectation of having its contents cast in the future tense. For some reason, an entire drawer of socks are taking a close interest in the BP's "prediction" of Muhammad. The sock-puppetry is best understood in the light of this discussion. rudra (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This user User:Rudrasharman is another sock puppet or team of User:Abecedare. The concern is on contributing to Bhavishya Purana and fix up the article. Article needs to be in shape just like any other article on Wiki. --MianJi (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the confirmed sockpuppetry and the fringe theory noticeboard pages linked above, the article appears to be in good shape. I would suggest if you have changes to make, you discuss them on the talk page and try and gain consensus. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some admin talk to this User:Abecedare and notify user on edits. --MianJi (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Or you could try and do as I suggested above, and make your case on the talk page. That's really a better solution for you, I promise. Redrocket (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • quack, quack
  1. MianJi (talk · contribs)
  2. Padma10 (talk · contribs)
  3. Hindustan10 (talk · contribs)
  4. Mian Kumaran (talk · contribs)
  5. MianWala (talk · contribs)
  6. Padma 101 (talk · contribs)
  7. Padma4Life (talk · contribs)
  8. Padma1000 (talk · contribs)
  9. Pandit101 (talk · contribs)
  10. Persian194 (talk · contribs)
  11. Kannan94 (talk · contribs)
  12. Danger10 (talk · contribs)
  13. Ajmad (talk · contribs)
  14. NaSuraLK (talk · contribs)
  15. MalverNParkS (talk · contribs)
  16. Ctrains (talk · contribs)
  17. Amod10 (talk · contribs)
  18. AmodhaTani99 (talk · contribs)
  19. Geodeo (talk · contribs)
  20. Barryboy1987 (talk · contribs)
  21. PureHindi (talk · contribs)
  22. MadJatt13333 (talk · contribs)
  23. Kapanad (talk · contribs)
  24. Pundit194 (talk · contribs)
  25. Kumarans194 (talk · contribs)
  26. Kannan87 (talk · contribs)
  27. Hindustan13749 (talk · contribs)
  28. Sarabjeet87 (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed Thatcher 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I was not even informed of this thread, but am glad to see sanity prevail. Can some admin., please block and tag these accounts ? The sockpupeteer in DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs) or his sockmaster Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ctrains is not an account...—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Odd, I thought I copied it straight from the checkuser output. It is CTrains (talk · contribs). Thatcher 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's/they're using IPs now. rudra (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we all are socks - well, that's useful evidence for my research project.
But seriously, can we semi-protect the following pages:

Last time, they were semi-protected for 3 days, but that was obviously not sufficient. Abecedare (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the checkuser missed socks like Kannan21 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), which are now busy at Wikipedia:Long term abuse (isn't that ironic!) Abecedare (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL[edit]

I criticized the use of a revisionist fringe source that contradicts the mainstream scholarly view of a historical entity, and User:Slackerlawstudent responds to my criticism of the source in questions by saying "The only reason you seek to discredit him is because of your own obvious prejudice against anything Arab." [18] Is this acceptable conduct by this user? He's basically accruing me of a being a racist, because I criticized a source. I had previously warned him not to make such accusations and only comment on the content, not the editor per WP:NPA, but he keeps attacking me.--07fan (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute. User:07fan seems to be guilty of the same here where he/she declared "historical revisionism ( a common Pan-Arabist practice) " Toddst1 (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the source, not the user - that is the difference between the two comments.--07fan (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a personal attack, but snippy snarkiness from both editors. Calling someone's proposed source "revisionist fringe" is a bit hard edged. Try talking about reliable sources instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note. Additional discussion on this topic at User_talk:Toddst1#Reply. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Saying "this would be historical revisionism ( a common Pan-Arabist practice)" may not quite be racist, but could easily be taken that way and it indeed is a kind of sweeping and wholly misleading polemic which has no place in a discussion of sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not nec. racist, as pan-Arabism is a coherent political ideology. I note, however, that I got into some hot water recently for saying something about "pan-Arabist editors", so it is an affiliation which is no longer as uncontroversial as once it was. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

This was here a few days ago, but I'm wondering if any outside admins are willing to check out the situation at this article. I'm no fan of the movie or its viewpoint, but the article has some very blatant WP:NPOV and WP:SYN problems, immediately in advance of its first public showing tomorrow. A steady stream of editors has arrived to complain, but with all the noise it's become quite difficult to deal with. I think people would like to avoid protecting the article, but if a few admins or others might look in with focused and specific ways to help, it might do a good deal for the article over the next few days. Mackan79 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 seems unable to accept the requirements of NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and has made accusations of WP:SYN on content sourced from the National Center for Science Education used as a secondary source from a mainstream viewpoint. Additional eyes will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Mackan79 has also brought some very good points to the table. A formal peer review of the article would be most helpful. Angry Christian (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Not many in comparison to those that ignore WP:NPOV Undue Weight. Odd nature (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Indeed, my concern is particularly with the first overview section here, discussed here, which has significant WP:SYN problems as well as strongly opinionated language ("The film openly sets out," "The film ignores," "Stein tries to dismiss," etc.) The WP:SYN issue relates to sections that are sourced only to articles about intelligent design, but predating or not discussing this film. Some editors say this is necessary to present the predominant view on a type of pseudoscience (a characterization I don't dispute), while I and various others are trying to clarify that this is an article about the film, not about ID, which means so satisfy WP:SYN we need sources that discuss the movie. I think it can be appreciated if people read the section at issue, linked above and again here. Mackan79 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the sort of disingenuousnesses in Mackan's comment more than a little hard to leave unrebutted. He's been been trying for days to remove the majority viewpoint from the article, ignoring the consensus of established regular editors from Wikiproject Intelligent Design like Dave Souza and FM. The "steady stream of editors" he mentions have been ID promoters by-and-large, and are the only ones there who've supported Mackan's proposed changes; so what does that tell you? Odd nature (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It tells me that the vast majority of editors who think ID is a pseudoscience and should be thoroughly debunked - but are nevertheless interested in applying Wikipedia policy - are scared off the page by persistent incivility and accusations of bias and whitewashing. This needs to be cleaned up, with civility parole if necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of bias cooking in that article, and it probably needs a top down overhaul. It currently reads like an attack piece on ID, instead of simply presenting the unbiased facts about the film, and the film's reception. Based on the FOX News review, just an unbiased reporting will show what a load of steaming dookie the movie is, so remove all the attacking and smears that can't be readily supported and shown to be relevant. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you give us one example of such a "smear" then? Odd nature (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You've already been given them. ThuranX (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that Odd nature appears to be one of the more problematic editors on the page. His first comment to me was here, where he told me to "stop trying to whitewash the page" (based on no other interaction that I'm aware of). He repeated a similar comment here. He's the one who most recently replaced the current version here, also removing the NPOV tag placed by another editor here, but doesn't seem interested in discussing the problems on the talk page. I'd attempt to reinstate an improved version,[19] but my concern is that Odd nature will continue to revert without discussion and that this will lead to page protection (just as the movie is about to be released) Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a cursory pass at some of the most obvious problems, like some of the phrases cited above, some poor grammatical constructs, and the spreading of review material throughout the article to further knock it down. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the look and the revisions. I wonder if having reviewed the section you'd have an opinion on the version here by comparison (any other eyes would still be welcome). Mackan79 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the primary author of the page, I have watched with some dismay but sense of inevitability as the page language has become more and more twisted and distorted. The English is tortured. There are all kinds of textural infelicities. This is what happens when you have the "encyclopedia everyone can edit" and it is on a topic that many are excited about (a controversial film opening tomorrow). We have had a large number of editors who have never been at the page before, and some who ostensibly have never been at Wikipedia before, on all sides of the issue, showing up to edit. And redit. And edit and edit again. Under these circumstances, it should be no surprise that the article is a load of stilted awkward prose. Of course it should be rewritten; I have said this repeatedly. I have done it twice already, top to bottom. And under this kind of editorial assault, doing it again at the moment is somewhat pointless; no edit has much chance of "sticking". All we can do is manage it a bit so it does not descend too rapidly into nonsense, but it is inevitable that it descend under this type of pressure. No one can guard it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and even if we could, it would be highly inadvisable and contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. --Filll (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What can we do to get a formal peer review? Angry Christian (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The smartest thing to do is to wait until the movie closes, probably in a week or so. And then everyone loses interest. And we split off a couple of sections into side articles. And then when it is quiet, and much smaller, it can be rewritten.--Filll (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we would give up on the article while so many people are coming to visit it. These are the important days currently, when by far the most readers are looking to Wikipedia as a resource for this film. Right now we are blatantly failing our core policies, with a number of editors on the page actively preventing compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; if those are non-negotiable, then we need some admins or others to step in and take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:NOR. Too many editors, new to the article, want to give credence to the views of the film makers presented in primary sources without third party evaluation, and to push the majority scientific view off into other paragraphs or a separate section, blatantly contravening our core policies. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I for one am giving up on it. All my edits were reverted as POV pushing, even the ones where I clarified what 'it' and 'he' means, where they were unclear. When grammar is POV, it's not worth fighting it. OrangeMarlin can run that page however he wants. Don't cross the admins. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll (talk · contribs) has given the best advise. The film is at its most controversial today. Sort of like Snakes on a plane: remember that? Two weeks after release, no one did. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We can see what happens, but it isn't actually just today, and I'm fairly doubtful things will change. Like various things, it's something experienced editors would pretty much have to check out the article to see. Of course, most of these would probably know better than to get involved, but I guess that's a different story... Mackan79 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Well most experienced editors actually know what NPOV is and so on.--Filll (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hah. Not the ones who perpetually revert all edits not made by their coterie, even to the level of grammatical fixes. ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if additional eyes will come, but it should be clarified that the issue here is not driveby editors, but a question of whether a film that promotes intelligent design should itself (the film, in an article about it) be treated as a fringe view, thus specifically removing the NPOV requirement that it be treated "fairly." For example, we currently have an overview that, instead of stating what is in the film, immediately jumps in the second and third sentences to what the film ignores, and stating that the film is confusing and inconsistent. This is being defended by long term editors of the page. I understand we could have a long mediation on the issue, but I think it is a clear enough misunderstanding of NPOV that a few more eyes could be helpful in resolving the issue while so many people are reading the page (the stream of reader complaints here is well more than I have seen on any other page). Mackan79 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a standard argument from proponents of WP:FRINGE views: "I do not like what the mainstream sources say, especially the criticisms, so we should ignore those and just go with the positive sources". Riiiiiight. But sorry, that is not WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a large part of what turned What the Bleep Do We Know into such a battleground. Once we all agreed to live by the painful restriction that only sources that actually mentioned the film were admissible, it got better. Still, that article seems to be under permanent protection, so I can't hold out much hope for this one stabilizing.Kww (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying needs to happen in terms of the sourcing here, Kww, but is being denied by Filll, Dave, and some others, apparently on the theory that anyone who suggests this is pushing a fringe view. Mackan79 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Mackan79, as well as the many readers called in support, evidently want a POV balance that is not reflected in the reliable secondary sources I've looked at. The film first and foremost promotes pseudoscience, demanding that it be given a pass from actually having to produce a testable theory or any research work on the grounds that it's a matter of religious faith. Mainstream science and education organisations have provided detailed background on the disingenuous claims made in the film and in its promotion, and NPOV requires that we should not give undue weight or credence to the fringe view. All statements should be verifiable from reliable sources, and not based on the presuppositions of the editors or their political or religious views. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
First off: I am about as far from a fringe-believer or -apologist as one is ever likely to find. However, I find this an interesting conundrum; because the movie is in fact ABOUT something considered "fringe", it almost seems to me that "undue weight" works BACKWARDS from the norm in this situation--in other words, the constant insistence on scientific viewpoints, in an article about a movie which is ABOUT fringe-science, would be the "undue" in "undue weight". Wouldn't a compromise view be something to the effect of a caveat at the beginning, like "The movie states this. We know there's a whole 'nother viewpoint out there, which is commonly considered more scientifically viable; however, this article isn't about that, it's about _____________"....in other words, sort of a scientific equivalent of an "in-universe" tag that could be used here??? Just a thought....Gladys J Cortez 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Gladys has this about right. The 'anti-fringe' folks seek to fight the fringe view itself on the article page, rather than simply report that the film is about a fringe view, and then discuss relevant issues, like out-of-context quote controversies, and critical response. They instead seek to expand reasonable anti-fringe NPOV policing, which is sorely needed in SOME PLACES, into a place where it is NOT needed. Links to 'intelligent Design' and 'Theory of Evolution' will provide more interested readers places to go to expand their understanding of both the science and the non-science, and the controversies and the nonsense. But to fight that war where instead we should be writing an article about a film and only what is germaine to that film, is a wrongheaded idea. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Gladys & ThuranX. Too much of the article (okay, of the version I looked at) is dedicated to refuting the movie; anyone who is informed about current American culture wars will know what to think from the first sentence (which states, in effect, educators are forbidden to teach Intelligent Design). I skipped several of the middle sections, & had all of my answers about the movie answered by reading from "Critical reaction" on. (FWIW, I've lost a lot of respect of Ben Stein after reading this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
See the movie, lose more. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. At this point I consider going to see this movie an exercise about as informative as repeatedly beating my hand with a hammer to see whether it will hurt: not only do I already know the answer, but doing this is wastefully painful. -- llywrch (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> While I fully accept that m'learned friends are well aware of the nonsense being peddled by this film, unfortunately a significant part of the population of the US, notably the school boards and legislators of Louisiana and Texas, believe all that the film tells them and aren't going to click on links to find out otherwise. NPOV rightly requires us to show all significant views on the subject, and while I'm confident that the article can be tightened by use of summary style, splitting it to make the mainstream view a POV fork is not on. .. dave souza, talk 11:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In a word, that's bullshit. We aren't the thought police. It is NOT Wikipedia's job to become an activist site for Science OR Religion. We are to create an article about a MOVIE, which happens to be about FRINGE material. The place to provide refutation to the FRINGE material is on the page about that FRING topic, not on the page about a movie. Material about criticism of the film and its apparent biases, as reported by WP:RS can be included, refutation of ID by WP:RS is NOT, because it is tangential to the FILM, at best. ID refutation goes in teh ID article, or a 'criticisms of ID' article. ThuranX (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If we confine the article to the film as a film, it's be a very short article about a badly made film panned by all film critics. However, as soon as we describe the claims made in the film, NPOV comes into play. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bart Versieck[edit]

I've just blocked Bart Versieck (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a week for continued disruption by editing other peoples talk page edits. I knew there was some history to this but was just pointed to a previous discussion from last year which is over the same issue and shows numerous warnings and nearly as many promises not to do it again. Where to know? I'd like another opinion.

Clearly the behaviour is not super-serious, but I find it extremely annoying, especially when promises to reform have been given. —Moondyne click! 06:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is a good block. The user's history and block log sufficiently support your actions. -JodyB talk 06:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a reasonable block to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if a longer term remedy was appropriate. —Moondyne click! 08:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a hard one to call; there is a lot of wiki-gnoming work (as a wiki-gnome myself I believe that it is a fairly constructive way of contributing) together with an apparent inability not to edit other peoples comments on talkpages. The editor seems to be an inveterate tinkerer. A quick look at the Interiot tool for the editor indicates sizable contributions to US Presidents, WW1 veterans and supercentararian articles (and a couple of other editors user pages). Suffice to say that if the editor was blocked long term then there is unlikely to be a huge hole in article space that wouldn't be covered by other editors. Perhaps there would be a net gain from a lack of disruption and reverting of inappropriate edits? I may be minded either to up the block to 3 months, which could then be reduced upon promise to reform back to the one week, or make it clear that the very next time they edit someone else's comment then it is a three month block. There is simply too much time and resource already spent on trying to get this editor to conform to a simple principle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalbot[edit]

I've just blocked 83.170.102.177 for 48 hours for obvious vandalism, but the rate of edits from this user (6 per minute) makes me suspect that this may be a vandalbot. Is this worth investigating further? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

May wish to request checkuser, could be someone else who's logged out. It's not a tor node, and it comes from the UK. Of course, the first thing to do is what you did—block, although you might want to do it for longer just to be safe. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Or it's an open proxy, as the IP belongs to "UK's biggest host".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's these guys...means nothing to me, but it might help someone else. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well anyway someone is and has been doing stuff towards me for some time. Its slowly got worse each time. Started with my page bankings then messages then all of my pages got semiprotected and now i see that it has moved to other pages. Here is a list of all of the ip's that i have noticed / been told about.

  • 67.207.143.74
  • 70.44.52.128
  • 76.76.3.70
  • 67.228.120.234
  • 82.195.136.187
  • 92.48.194.11
  • 64.214.185.197
  • 85.17.140.219
  • 83.170.102.177
  • 74.220.202.28

I hope this list might help in some way. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked half of these as confirmed open web proxies, some of the others are probably open proxies and it may be worth listing those and similar future vandals at WP:OP for checking. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A case for "oversight" to destroy an edit?[edit]

I see the edit has been deleted. If you want to request oversight, go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight (you have to do it via email). Hut 8.5 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef block of S marky 90 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs •