Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive430

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

Noticeboard archives

User:Korax1214 moving pages related to Black communities around the world[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely

Can somebody take a look at the recent contributions of a user (who seemed to have been retired but has just become active again tonight), who started moving pages related to Black communities around the world, namely User:Korax1214? The reason I'm asking is that the moves are quite similar to the moves performed by User:CanuckAnthropologist prior to his being blocked (for tendentious editing) yesterday, so there is always the possibility of a sockpuppet at work. A second opinion would be most welcome. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be the case, although I would like further input from other editors before sanctioning either or both accounts. I have removed the {{inactive}} templates from the accounts user and talk pages, for the sake of clarity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it likely they are the same person (for instance compare [1] and [2] for consistent attempts to move articles beginning with "Afro-") and as such have blocked the account indefinitely. Trebor (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem user - 3rr, own, vandalism, copyvio[edit]

Ertert12345 (talk contribs count logs page moves block log email) is being difficult at the Oakamoor page. He/she claims ownership (multi-diff at my talk page and Alanmaher's talk page); is adding nonsensical information (several, but typically like this); has broken the three-revert rule (five edits in the last 30-odd hours); and has replaced the page with a copyyvio from about Britain. Anything I say just seems to wind him/her up. Could a third party have a look? Mr Stephen (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Stephen is claiming ownership of the Oakamoor page and vandalizing the site. As anyone can see who actually lives in Oakamoor, the information at the Oakamoor entry is correct. It is provided by the AboutBritain.com website under its Oakamoor entry. I submit that if Mr. Stephen continues to vandalize this entry that his access to wikipedia should be questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertert12345 (talkcontribs) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to June 4. Wikpedia is not a travel brochure. Additions such as "Nature lovers will enjoy a trip up Cotton Dell", are entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.--Atlan (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the copyright policy/attitude about copy-and-paste from UK government sites? Ertert has copy and pasted material from this site. Kosher or no? --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that he should be blocked for a week, with a warning that of this behavior continues after the block has expired, then he/she will be blocked perminantly. Chafford (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
To EEMIV: The page has "© Copyright Staffordshire County Council 2008" on the bottom. So no, it's not kosher to copy/paste from there. To Chafford: A block would be punitive now, not preventative. He has stopped inserting travel brochure-like info into the article after I notified him of Wikipedia policy against it.--Atlan (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Appletrees[edit]

Resolved

Both parties have been reminded to solve content disputes through dispute resolution. Participants are advised to continue resolving their dispute civilly elsewhere. No further administrator intervention seems necessary at this immediate point. Admins who disagree are more than welcome to re-open the discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

He clearly used wiki sistem to check me as he said, the other use of improvement of the account. Is it a gaming, isn't it? [[3]][[4]]. I wish I knew what I should do in this case. I think this is clealy destructive. Please response to him some. Jazz81089 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on, this isn't a very clear report, but is User:Appletrees implying User:EdJohnston has written or endorses the edit summary in the first diff?--Atlan (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote same content before the User:EdJohnston's statement. But Appletree isn't comprehending of temporal correlation. By the way I put in question Appltrees conduct to use wiki system to check me. I don't want to reply his destructive plot as he wants. Wiki isn't Appletree's toy. Jazz81089 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Appletrees of this conversation. Perhaps he can help clarify this situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the complaint is, either, but it may have something to do with this accusation of sockpuppetry. —Travistalk 17:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, FYI: I finally figured out where EdJohnston fits into all of this. —Travistalk 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I already wrote same what EdJohnston wrote before he wrote, as I already write in my talk page [[5]]. I think that finally conclusion is the same as yours, EdJohnston's and mine about this item. What I put in question is Appltrees conduct to use wiki system to check me. He reverted the item only to check my opinion without no other reason[[6]][[7]]. Isn't it destructive? Appletrees conduct is too hostile attitude to wikipedia community and the wikipedia as a dictionary. Jazz81089 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not the IP's, and not a suckppetry, as you would be ascertainable. So I would wait your testification. And CU Request was declined. But He will cleary repeat of the same act as he wrote below. I can tolerable of CU again, but I can't do that Appletree use the highly public wikipedia dictionary to check someone as he wants. It's wretched stupidity. Jazz81089 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's wretched stupidity.? You made the clear personal attack to me at this public place. Surely, admin would not condone such the violation on WP:NPA by you. Of course, this is a Wikipedia, and you do not regard any WP:DR methods unlike me. You just repeat your insistence and you POV to the series of the articles in order to take out all Korean mention from articles that you care. --Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Jazz81089, stay civil. Appletrees, please also try to assume good faith. The check-user request was not declined; it was problematic for technical reasons. I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to here, Jazz, as you indicate that you can tolerate "CU" but not "the highly public wikipedia dictionary to check someone". Appletrees has no access to any technical tools to check anyone; he can request it of an editor who has been trusted to discretely handle that function if it seems appropriate. I agree that it was improper for Appletrees to edit the article as he did after the block. I suggest you both pursue dispute resolution and edit war no more to avoid lengthier blocks or the full protection of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not understand that why his highly inappropriate personal attack is just mildly treated. The article was originally written as "Korean-manhwa comics", so his preferred version is a wrong version against previous consensus for long time. I've tried to have a good faith in the anon/Jazz even though I watched their/his continued vandalism on manhwa and others. I've done and waited him to response to the normal dispute resolutions but what he has done? Nothing except this.--Appletrees (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, I am not the IP's and sockpuppets, so it is no problem to me to CU more and more. I only want to stop to use the wikipedia system not to use to make a good dictionary but for other aim. With conducts like Appletrees, no one want to edit with the following the beat of his own drum to make the wiki as a good dictionary, and with the conducts the dictionary will be a mixed with what isn't a dictionary. It is cleary destuructive to the wikipedia commnunity. Jazz81089 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying even though I'm writing broken Engrish. no one want to edit with the following the beat of his own drum to make the wiki as a good dictionary, and with the conducts the dictionary will be a mixed with what isn't a dictionary.????????? Just like your contribution history, you have nothing but edit warring anywhere with your 9 edit before you decided to return the article so deftly after your 8 month break. The sudden appearance of yours does not add up at all. I've been writing articles with reliable sources and produced many NPOV articles unlike your disruptive behaviors. I wrote over 400 articles with 7 DYKs. You have been here for 3 years, so that requires NPOV and writing ability with reliable sources. Tell me or show me what contribution has you done to English Wikiepdia? Your disruption does not give Wikipeida to develop furthure. Have you ever participated in my suggestion to resolve the issue? --Appletrees (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible disruptive sockpuppetry of Jazz81089 (talk · contribs)[edit]

The comment at the edit summary is from admin User:EdJohnston at WP:AN3, not from me. Due to the limited space, I paste the partial of his comment not altering anything at all. Several days ago, a Japanese OCN ISP anon user vandalized manhwa several times[8][9][10], which has been a tendentious target by Japanese anons/ or banned Azukimonaka (talk · contribs).[11][12][13][14][15] They(?) with the same ISP anon(s) altered the lead section on manhwa, and tried it to look like a copycat of Japanese manga, with no source.[16]Jan.23.2008[17] That kind of disruption has been continued for over months or over a year by the same ISP user.[18][19] Due to the OCN anon, I checked out his/her contribution. He blanked the manhwa mention and nationality of Korean creators of Blade of the Phantom Master as well. As I restored it to the previous one from his blanking and recalled that a mention of Korean-manhwa comic in the lead section was completely removed by the same ISP user and Azukimoanak since the June of the last year. Whenever the info was restored by other editors, the same anon editor blanked the info over and over. Not surprisingly, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) started the the campaign.

Regardless of my several warnings or suggestions him/her to participate in an open discussion[20] or their talk page, the anon did not care about the common WP:DR methods. I have not claim to remove Japaense anime/manga category or only include manhwa, but presented a compromised version like a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artists......specializing first as Japanese manga published by Japanese magazine..... I think the description both contains mention of their job as manwha artists and and its first publication as manga written in Japanese. In addition, the work was later published in South Korea, of course in Korean. However, the anon/Jazz insists removing all Korean nationality and manwha and it should be purely Japnese manga, because it was directed by a Japanese magazine and published in Japanese. However, the work style and original draft written in Korean have nothing to do with manga style unlike his claim. Their fame already has established in South Korea and first introduced their works to the US and Europe. And the anon(s) (or one person) have been blanked the info to look the work like only manga work by Japanese creators.

So I also filed WP:RFC to get more opinions from third persons[21], but he did not seem to participate in any of them. and then, Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) suddenly appeared to do the same thing as the anon's after his long break; 8 months! So I went to WP:AIV, and heard that I should file either WP:ANI or WP:SSP. The total edit number of the new contender counted only 9 in 3 years before his reappearance to Wikipedia. To me, he is too obviously using a sockpettry just like Azukimonaka did. Anyways, two admins semi-protected the three pages[22] due to the anon's disruption. The former's edits are all overlapped with Azukimonaka's and shares with the writing style too. So I filed a WP:RFCU on him[23], however, due to his edit number in total is insufficient to judge the case[24] (once checkuser said to me that at minimum editing 50 times is needed to judge whether editor in question is a sock or not). He or she also did the same thing to other relevant page, which pertains to one of the manhwa creators too. I went to a couple of admins who looked at the case[25], [26][27] and semi-protected or has edited the article in question too[28] for seeking a help. In the meanwhile, the duo/or seemingly one person violated 3RR twice in a row, so I filed this to WP:3RR[29], but my plea was ignored and the obvious sockpuppeting did not be counted.[30] The both was blocked by admin Selket (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring, [31] although another admin, EdJohnston expressed his concern on Jazz's blanking.[32] I felt very unfair in this situation because the blocking admin did not even a common block sign as a courtesy and I was treated the same regardless of my all effort to resolve the issue. However, I still gave him another opportunity him to express his thought on the dispute.[33] Besides, I left a note to both of the WikiProject Manga and animation project[34] and Korean project[35] (manhwa is managed under the Korean pop culture task force). If he is really not the anon, he has not participated in any of the WP:DR. And now, he absurdly reported it with no logic but seems to believe that the first report here is advantageous for him. I will add the relevant links soon. --Appletrees (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your attempting to ascertain if Jazz81089 is the same as the IP addresses making changes, given that the changes are identical. The "duck" test makes a connection seem likely. But can you explain what you intended by your edit summary? The text you modified today did not "remove the Korean mention", as those edit summaries would seem to imply, here and here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not remove the Korean mention by myself, but restoring it from his blanking. --Appletrees (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The Korean mention had not been removed. It was still in the text when you edited. Jazz's last edits before the block left the following: "is a Japanese manga series created by a Korean manga writer". Your revision changed it thusly: "is a cartoon and an animation series created by a Korean manhwa writer." In his last edit, the one you reverted today, Jazz did not remove the Korean mention, although he characterized the work as "Japanese manga" by a Korean manga writer, while you characterize it as "cartoon and animation" by a Korean manhwa writer. Jazz had not removed the Korean reference with his last edit, which makes your edit summary a bit misleading (even if you did not intend it so). Also worthy of note, Ed's opinion may well be relevant to reaching consensus on the removal of the mention of Korea, but it does not constitute permission to continue edit warring (please note that Ed also said that he thought the block against you for edit warring was correct). Reverting the article to your preferred version immediately on release from a block for edit warring on the article is not proper. I understand that the question here is whether the work should be characterized as manga (in preference to the publishing place) or manwha (in preference to the writer's culture). This is not so urgent a question that a reversion can be made without process. The thing to do here is neutrally seek additional opinions (you want to avoid canvassing) and reach consensus on the article's talk page, following which the version consensus prefers can be put in place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My saying is encompassing all the changes by him/them. They are not Korean manga artists as to the artist, but Korean manwha artists because their work of art is not related to Japanese manga or learned its style in or from Japan at all. Comic critics said their work is more like graphic novel and they said as such. Besides, he removed category of manhwa over and over. Besides, after the block, why would I posted to relevant Wikiprojects to get more opinion? However he posted here to accuse me of gameing Wiki rule in a very bad faith. He has not participated in any WP:DR initiated by me. Besides, he made a personal attack against me "wretched stupidity" --18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The Korean mention remained. What you're talking about is a content dispute. You had no consensus for reverting the article again and should know after having been blocked for edit warring that continued reversion is not the means of handling content dispute. Your posting to Wikiprojects is appreciated and is an appropriate means of gaining consensus (although the language you used is not neutral). I hope it will bring in enough contributors to help the two of you resolve your differences. Meanwhile, let me be clear that blocks do not exist so that you can do your time and then go back to reverting. This can indeed be interpreted as gaming the system and might lead to a further block. His comment about "wretched stupidity" above has no bearing on this at all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
With all extra due respect, they are no relation with Korean manga artists. Just like there is no Japanese manwha artist unless a Japanese learns the art in South Korea and keeps publishd his/her work in Korea. Besides, does his version have a result from any consensus or discussion with me or others? Not that I know of and your saying sounds like I should bear the too transparent sockpuppetry. If the anon is truely unrelated to Jazz, he should've already appeared with his legimate account. Who else appeared at the page with the same editing pattern? None but Jazz. I do not do gaming the system, but simply restored it to near original version. I don't have any capacity to hold his mockery such as that. Besides, how well would he know me from his previous 9 edits and this edit warring? --Appletrees (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant. Even if the other editor in a dispute content with you is, in your opinion, flatly wrong, you still must resolve dispute through consensus. You may not return to edit warring after a block. Restoring it to the original version is no defense. (Consensus can change.) The administrator who made that comment did not himself choose to revert Jazz's last edit; there's no justification for you to do so on his behalf on the basis of his comment. Meanwhile, as regards your concerns about sock puppetry, the article has been semi-protected; further IP edits to the page will not happen until that expires. You have recourse to the usual steps at WP:SOCK if you believe sock puppetry is an ongoing concern. You've already reached out to others to participate in your content dispute. Handle it through process, not through brute force. At this point, I don't personally believe further administrator intervention here is necessary. You'd both be well advised to go resolve your dispute at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your spending time and effort to resolve the case although the result is not what I expected. I will look into the policy of (Consensus can change.) to acknowledge it thoroughly. However, I did not report this case here, but Jazz81080 did. If furthur disruption or suspicious sockpuppetry would happen at the talk page of the relevant articles, that would be really necessary of administrative actions to one or both of us, but I hope not. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

←I understand that content disputes can be highly frustrating, particularly when you feel that the right answer is obvious. I've been in that situation myself. I hope that the two of you will be able to come to terms. If you don't get a response from the Wikiprojects and it only involves you two, then perhaps WP:3O would be another place to look. Remember to post your request neutrally. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Sick of this user[edit]

Resolved: Red4tribe to be hit with a stick for this pointless ANI thread, Trip Johnson blocked for being obnoxius. Now go edit the bloody encyclopedia and stop with the drama Nick (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson.He is very uncivil and I am only one among many editors who he has argued with. See talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a sample.
Take a look at the lovely name he called me here(end of my paragraph). He has recieved many warnings in the past, but has a tendency to delete everything on his talk page every time he gets a warning. Just look at past versions. [36] Red4tribe (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a school playground, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, have you tried speaking to him? if so, admin action is required, if not, please go and do so. Chafford (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tried talking to him!!?? Absolutley! Look at past versions of his talk page! Look at the talk on the battle of harlem heights. Look at this talk:Battle of Barren Hill. He does not listen to me whatsoever. If you would like me to go back and dig up every name he has called me I will. Red4tribe (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And this talk:Battle of Princeton
talk:Battle of Trenton or even on my own talkpage. Red4tribe (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad! Chafford (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Red4tribe (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked Trip Johnson for a period of 24 hours before every reading this thread. But now I must say that it appears you two are bordering on harassment or stalking yourselves and ultimately added flames to the already large fire. Sitting here and talking about how much you hate a user and all the shitty things he has done is in no way constructive and while I stand by my block, I can understand the frustration that Trip Johnson may have been going through. Since he is now blocked I ask you to stay off his talk page and stop trying to pick a fight. Tiptoety talk 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Trying to pick a fight? I am just tired of him. I asked him to stop and he calls me an "asshole". I just want him to stop making disruptive edits. If he does that, he can go out and edit the world. That was my first post by me on his page in probably a few months anyways. Red4tribe (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson." could have been better phrased "I am having communication issues with User:Trip Johnson who is continually calling me names and referring to me as a asshole." I guess the whole exchange above: "Tried talking to him!!?? Absolutley!" seems a bit un called for to me. Tiptoety talk 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Xxhopingtearsxx-- a little too trusting[edit]

Resolved: Userpage deleted, Tiptoety talk 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this user ... has a lot of personal info on his user page. I would not be comfortable with my nephew having that much personal information out on the internet. Should he be gently ensouraged to be a lot more discreet? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think we should say that here. I've edited your comment just in case anyone wants to oversight the preceding versions. Perhaps user should start over with a new account without disclosure to begin with. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the content per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, as simply removing the information would still leave it in the page history. I have left a note for the user explaining why the information was deleted and offered to provide them a copy of the deleted material via email for them to alter and place back in their userspace (without the personal info of course). Tiptoety talk 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Cush - Unapologetic hate speech[edit]

I tried to have a reasonable discussion with user Cush about his use of the phrase "Jew Crew," explaining myself in full, but it seems he has no respect for the point of view that Jews should not be universally grouped as nationalist fanatics. See the Jerusalem talk page as well as Cush's talk page. I'm not a fan of the kneejerk approach to blocking, but given his obvious lack of concern over the fact that his language has been interpreted as hate speech, would like to see him blocked until he gets the message. Thanks much to any who get involved in this, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion on his user page, BELOW:

Offensive remarks
Please do not use phrases such as "jew crew" as you did here [37]. It is incredibly offensive, and you can get blocked from Wikipedia for using that kind of terminology. Thank you for your understanding. IronDuke 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How is that offensive? Jews are using it all the time. Cush (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I don't know which Jews you mean who use it "all the time." I can say that I have seen no editors on Wikipedia describe themselves in this way, and given that your post was generally disparaging, your use of that phrase could plausibly be construed as antisemtic. IronDuke 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we all know how much wikipedia is ruled by political correctness. It's a shame. But thank nogod we don't live in wikipedia. Cush (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I put this on the Jerusalem talk page, and thought I'd add it here:

Cush, to quote you from above:"That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way." I'm assuming you mean by 'their way' a Palestinian-disappearing perspective. I should not have to explain to you that "Jew Crew" implies that all Jews share the same perspective or are in cahouts with each other working always towards the same aims coming from the same perspective. How ridiculous can such an implication get? Do you have any idea how different Jews can be from one another? (I, for example, am a follower of Judaism and a citizen of Israel, yet most of my efforts involve re-inserting legitimate Palestinian history and perspective that has been omitted or deleted, to balance out an exclusive Jewish perspective {which leaves us with inaccurate wiki entries}). "Jew Crew" not only suggests that all Jews are the same but points quickly to 'world Jewish conspiracy' theories (which I should not have to mention led to the displacement of the Jewish population of Europe and directly impacted Palestinian national aspirations in turn).
May I refer you to the cartoon on RolandR's page: "Nazis, Palestine don't need you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamaLoLeshLa (talkcontribs) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as the shrug: "that's a common expression" - really, don't you think your 'logic' is a bit lacking? I just worked quite hard to 'explain' to administrators that 'Arab Israelis' may be in common usage, but it is not accepted by Palestinians in Israel. Many of the Israelis who were opposed to changing the term used your same 'logic.' (We finally managed to get the category "Arab Israelis" changed, through efforts to conduct a respectful discussion which assumed nothing of people's views based on their baqckground). The 'N-word' was also once in common usage, but this in no way justified public acceptance of the term. You can be dismissive and charge we over-sensitive Jews with political correctness, but don't you think the same charge in reverse (i.e. dismissing Palestinian efforts to change terminology and language on wiki as PC) is equally illegitimate?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Further, in addition to being offensive, you're also implying that everyone who is in support of the original, succinct phrasing is Jewish. Not true. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
WTF do you want from me? There are (Christian) folks who think they hold the monopoly on issues such as god, morals, and Christendom as such. And there are (Jewish) folks who will do everything to control issues such as Judaism, Israel, Palestine, and parts of ancient history. The latter are called the "jew crew" on fora that I have been on and I don't know or care whether that targets all Jews or all Israelis or who may feel offended by that. I did not invent the term nor do or will I give it a second thought. I, for one, am offended by religious fanaticism and nationalism (which both are reasons to present Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel), and by folks who present biblical tales as accurate history (and derive political claims from that). And, does anybody care? Cush (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: I am a Jew offended by racism towards Palestinians. And obviously I'm going to be offended at racism towards myself as well, or what good would I be to anybody. I really could care less about the context of your use of the term, I didn't even read the discussion. There is no justifiable context for such language, towards any group of people on the planet. I was gloing to give you a chance but given your response to my attempt to reason with you respectfully, think I may report this as hate speech, after all. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) LamaLoLeshLa
END of discussion thusfar (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I support LamaLoLeshLa's complaint. The editor was approached politely with requests for retraction and was hostile to feedback. DurovaCharge! 06:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this really about? I was indicating that those who edit articles to depict Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel (although not internationally recognized) are following a political and/or religious agenda. And I was using a term (without much thought) that targets those who push that agenda at all cost and who edit articles to force their perspective on everybody else. And now I get bashed for it as racist, antisemitic, and whatnot. So really, what is this about? Cush (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What this is really about is your using anti-semitic language. You appear here to be implying that it is about your stance on Jerusalem. Well, if you look at edits of mine such as [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc, you'll find that I have been active both in supporting the inclusion of material divergent from the Israeli stance on Jerusalem and in challenging the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. However, I find your stance here offensive. The more you argue against your edit having offended people, the more it looks to me that you really are antisemitic.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to put this into perspective, the complaint is about a single use of the disputed terminology in an edit summary. From there, this little anthill of minor incivility (real or perceived) has turned into the huge mountain of a mess we have now. WP:AGF indicates that we should take Cush at his word that he did not intend to be offensive. I have no problem with that and can accept it. At the same time, it should also be assumed that at least one user did find it offensive. The bottom line is that Cush can't really "undo" the edit summary and while an apology from Cush would be nice, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires him to do so. Cush asked "What...do you want from me?" The answer, I believe, is simple: simply refrain from the use of that term in the future. If Cush can agree to that, everyone lives. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaint is about Cush being unapolegitic about this use of language. People did not come straight here but raised it elsewhere. It is only when Cush himself failed to WP:AGF and accused others of having an agenda in complaining about his antisemitic language that I and others have come to this page. Things have gone sufficiently far for your contribution to strike me as naive. There certainly are policies and guidelines that have been violated here.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need to discuss this? The offence is lacerating, and the offender is unapologetic. That Cush should be banned is self-evident. The only question is that of the duration of the suspension. I leave it to administrators, but they should not wait for consensus on matters like flagrant, to use an ugly word characteristic of people who employ this hate-cant, 'Jew baiting'. People who come to I/P articles with that sort of mindset are not wanted and should be blocked, at least remonstratively, until they come forth with a sincere apology.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As a starting point, I have blocked User:Cush indefinitely, but plan to lift the block after 1 week on three condtions:

1) that the one comment is the extent of the inflammatory comments made
2) clear willingness demonstrated that any like comments will not be made/posted by this user again
3) appropriate conduct during the week off

I am sorry that the user in question normally participates in forums where that type of language is deemed acceptible. . . it is not. If civility is to mean anything, it has to create an environment where people can particpate amicably together to produce an encyclopedia --The comment made by Cush stands directly opposed, or in contradiction, to that idea. Once again, this is a starting point, I will of course go with the consensus here. Thoughts? R. Baley (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)I thought about putting a disclaimer here, but suffice it to say, I have no conflict of interest in this matter.

In other words, you're not Jewish? :-P Not sure that its relevant, but OK! Cush' participation and comments in the Israel/Palestinian conflict subject area makes him subject to the remedies of the IP arbitration case. Sanctions against users in this area should probably be logged here. AvruchT * ER 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It really isn't :-) As for the "Log of blocks and bans" area, I'm not sure that this applies, because I wasn't using the remedies from that case. Also, it states there that the remedies are to be enforced after a warning about the sanctions (I didn't see Cush's name on the notification list). In any case I think this block stands on its own. R. Baley (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
An appropriate response. If nothing had been done, it would have become open season for all sorts of misbehavior on I/P articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow; this is really an excessive response. As I noted on Cush's talk page, I agree that the statement was offensive and presumptuous, but this comment does not appear to reflect a ongoing trend, insofar as I have seen. He's not apologetic, but he sounds more naive (a la "I've seen this term used on other fora") than truly anti-semitic. Thus, an indefinite block here is just beating him into the ground for something that ultimately was not a big deal, as long as he doesn't continue to use such inappropriate terms. A refusal to provide an apology does not equal a refusal to stop; some people are just unwilling to say "I'm sorry", for a variety of reasons (some more valid than others). So, if he doesn't appear as if he'll continue with the inappropriate remarks, the block is not preventative, but punitive. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Right now, he's only blocked for a week assuming the conditions are met (not a pattern, assurances it won't happen again). This can be lengthened or shortened depending on what happens here. I didn't want to set a definite date in the block, because not enough people have weighed in here, and I thought it better to just change once rather than racking up the block log if consensus should change. Also note that I do not require an apology (not that one wouldn't be helpful). R. Baley (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, I think the way Baley has handled this could be used as a template for similar incidents. Cush has used an extraordinarily offensive phrase, and shown zero remorse/sense that it was wrong, or willingness to abide by policy in the future. I think a no questions asked indef would have been okay as well, but this leaves the door open to the user reforming. And tariq, I have every expectation that this user will exhibit this behavior in the future unless and until he says he won't. IronDuke 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's important to point out that the expression "Jew crew", by itself, is not inherently insulting or offensive. It's how it's used that's the problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
R. Baley made a good call here. Several editors had already tried to engage Cush in dialog without success. The ball is in Cush's court now: if he makes it clear that he gets it he can come back. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
At one point in time, the first hit for Jew on Google was to an anti-Semetic site, and Google defended it, in part, by pointing out that Jew was much more likely to be used by anti-Semites then others, who tend to use the adjective form. So it's inherently more offensive than, say, "the Jewish crew", would be. And phrases like "the Christian crew", "the atheist crew" or "the Jewish crew" would annoy me, and using them in any but the most limited sense would be horribly stereotyping. I think "Jew crew" comes pretty close to inherently offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's being used to verbally attack Jews, then it's offensive. I'm just saying that the words themselves are not necessarily offensive. It could even be used affectionately if it was used in the right way. It's not the words, it's how they're used. For a trivial comparison, when Billy Crystal had his spring training at bat for the Yankees, another comic said he was the DH - "Designated Hebrew". Is that offensive? Not the way it was used. I think the comic who said it was also Jewish, and that makes a major difference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that R. Baley's response was a good one and closely echoed what I suggested above (even though I was called 'naive' for it). I, personally, wouldn't have gone indef as this was his first "offense" in 2 years. He certainly doesn't show a pattern of this kind of behavior and I think that this may well be an isolated incident. This incident went from him saying it to it coming to ANI in just a few short hours. He could have just been having an off day. Perhaps that's just me being "naive" again, but based on his spotless editting history since 2006, I think that giving him the benefit of the doubt in this case (and a chance to improve) is fully justified. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my agreement with Baley's response - I think that Cush should get the message that 'casual' use of such language followed by a dismissive attitude to people's considerately expressed concern, does not fly on wikipedia....AND that he should have a chance to show that he gets the message/will not go down that road again. Thanks for your involvement, Baley and Durova. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Champions League 2008-09[edit]

I'm having a problem with SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs), who has been involved in content disputes and ignored my attempts to discuss the issue on his talk page. In the interest of full disclosure we were both blocked for edit warring about a week ago, though my block was appealed succesfully because it was ruled his unwillingness to discuss the issue justified my reversions of his edits as vandalism, thus the 3rr didn't apply. He has come back again, and it appears that he is attempting to sock his way around the issue by logging out of his account, though he used the exact same edit summary, so I don't see the point. Maybe it's a case of mistaken identity, but all the same please, someone look into this. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this, before an all out edit war begins again? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Grawp[edit]

Some of his sockpuppets have included in their edit summaries links to pages that make your Internet window move around, have pictures of sexual organs, and a voice saying "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!" Could someone please take down those sites? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can't, we neither run the websites or manage the ISP they are connected through. Chafford (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
And to be honest it isn't a terribly good idea to go to a website linked to in an edit summary by a pagemove vandal. We could blacklist the link but I don't think that affects edit summaries. Hut 8.5 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, someone was dumb enough to actually visit the sites Grawp links to? LOL. And the prize juggins award for the day goes to... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, that comment was uncalled for. For anybody reading this thread, remember that Grawp's edits (including edit summaries) include links to a shock site with malware. --Kyoko 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, I know. Apologies. Just couldn't resist...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Getting back on topic, it seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to fix this particular attack vector. Would it not be possible to ensure that hyperlinks in edit summaries aren't clickable? I seem to recall that the clickability was a fairly new feature anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen any of the links hyperlinked. They're just the urls that you copy and paste.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A request has already been filed to expand the blacklist to edit and other summaries - see bugzilla:13599 and bugzilla:13811. I'd suggest commenting and/or voting on those bugs to get the devs to work on it, although it appears that second link is getting some attention. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:White_aasian vandalism[edit]

Resolved

Fooling around with McDonald's and Burger King pages. I reported him on WP:AIV. Some pages will need to be fixed, possibly by an admin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety talk 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
He's repeatedly removing the warnings against vandalism. At this point, that's the only thing he can edit, so maybe it doesn't matter, although I thought that was against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't. Removal of a tag is only further evidence it was read. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
He can remove what ever he wants from his talk page, as long as it is not a {{unblock}} request while he is still blocked. Tiptoety talk 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware there's no general rule against removing stuff from one's talk page, beyond etiquette. However, when a user has been indefinitely blocked, the general rule also is that the only thing he should be doing is requesting an unblock. Doesn't much matter, as he's toast. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we care way too much about that. Provided a user isn't making serious personal attacks, I see no need to prevent them ranting on their talk page if they're banned, or deleting stuff, or whatever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Let him rant, revert any personal attacks, and otherwise leave him be and he'll go away soon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Zarbon unblock request[edit]

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

Indefinitely blocked user Zarbon was indefinitely blocked in December 2006 and is requesting an unblock. The blocking admin (MrDarcy) no longer edits, so I am bringing it here without prejudice. From the block log, it looks like he may not have intended an indefinite block (he said that the last block was not showing up in the log - if that was a caching or refresh or some such problem and he was referring to Deskana's 3-month block, then it may have been his intention only to block for 3 months). Anyway, Deskana hasn't edited in 2 weeks and MrDarcy has had 2 edits in the last 7 months. So I'm bringing it here without opinion for consideration. --B (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser first to find out if he's been socking to evade his block. He WAS indefed for that in the first place, after all... Jtrainor (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Checkuser first. There have been some recent socks floating around Dragon Ball related pages including some vandalism on my user page that has been suspected of being from this user by members of WP:DBZ. --UnquestionableTruth-- 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblocking, indef seems a bit long for a user who violated 3RR (even with socks). Tiptoety talk 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose unblocking for the moment. All the above seems fine but this user had a MAJOR problem with revert-warring, and didn't express an understanding of that in the unblock request. I'd like to see him address that at least. Mangojuicetalk 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Checkuser shows nothing but him on his self-admitted IP (User talk:72.229.48.178). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Mangojuice, FYI, please see his latest comment at [43] where he says "I am going to try my best not to edit war". I have no strong opinion either way, although I would quote Master Yoda on this one - "do or do not, there is no try". When you are going to "try" to do something, that means that there may be circumstances beyond your control that would cause you to be unable to do it, but barring that, you will comply with the request. But there's no circumstance that could ever force you to edit war - so there is no "try". I may be reading too much into this, though ... I freely admit that. --B (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Based on [44], I have unblocked him. Feel free to review or whatever. --B (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More MascotGuy[edit]

Back today as User:Technovision, blocked indef, all edits reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Tiptoety talk 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3rr in Afd[edit]

Resolved

User:BurpTheBaby has broken the 3rr (by many edits) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference. I think a notice from an admin would be more helpful than a notice from me. Thanks for your time! §hep¡Talk to me! 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Anchor has broken this too, please be fair Step. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Frank Anchor did nothing to violate the rule. He was reverting what he honestly thought was vandalism to the AfD page. And the rule specifically lists reverting vandalism as being exempt from the rule. Ben1283 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard is this a-way Q T C 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I already got my warning without the user putting it on that page. Can you just write him a note please. He's the elder user who should know the rule. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
>>>>my talk page is over here>>>> Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The involved editors appear to have resolved this on their own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested[edit]

The Israeli-Palestinian wikiwars have flared up again on the article on Muhammad al-Durrah (and tangentially Charles Enderlin). A number of Internet activists and bloggers have been promoting a conspiracy theory asserting that the latter (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the former (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial, one of several libel actions over this matter. The outcome of the trial two weeks ago has led to a number of apparent SPAs (Julia1987 (talk · contribs), Southkept (talk · contribs), Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs)) and some existing editors (Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs)) trying to revise the article to make it state that the conspiracy theory is an established fact, or to give the conspiracy theory equal billing with the mainstream viewpoint. However, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case do not mention the conspiracy theory at all, although there is a legitimate and widely documented dispute concerning who fired the fatal shots.

Because of the ongoing libel case - which is not over yet, as it's being appealed - I've been keeping an eye on this article for some time. There are obvious WP:BLP concerns over how to report a conspiracy theory that accuses living high-profile people of professional fraud. There are also major WP:NPOV issues about attempts to present a tiny-minority POV as being just as important (or more so) as the POV expressed by the vast majority of sources. It's pretty much the same kind of issue as we've experienced with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, which led to the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories.

I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN and WP:FTN and I've tried extensively to explain on the article talk page what's required by [NPOV, BLP and V. However, to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing going on (see e.g. [45]). This is despite the fact that the article is under arbitration sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Remedies - I've notified the editors involved of the sanctions but it doesn't seem to have made any difference to their conduct.

Moreschi (talk · contribs) has commented on the matter on the FTN (see [46]) and has requested more eyes to review the article. It would be helpful if some uninvolved admin(s) could take a look and advise on what can be done to resolve this matter before it ends up in arbitration enforcement. (Perhaps it should go there anyway?) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I’d welcome some new, uninvolved editors’ eyes on this. Just to set the record straight, though, it would help if those joining the discussion note that the statement currently in dispute (“reportedly been killed”) has been the consensus version in this article for over two years, and that contrary to User:ChrisO’s one sided presentation above, it is actually ChrisO and friends (User:Tarc; User:Nickhh; User:CJCUrrie) who are trying to change this long standing consensus, and replace it with a new statement introduced just 5 days ago with this edit, after they had agreed to the previous wording for a long time.

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case published since the recent French court’s ruling have either labeled the incident a “likely hoax”, or at a minimum, treat the theory that he was killed as being very suspect. ChrisO did indeed notify some participants of the ArbCom sanction – but curiously all those notified happened to be holding a viewpoint different than his, while his fellow editors named above received no such notice, and unsurprisingly, alongside Chris (who has already been reported for violating 3RR on the article), continue to happily edit war over this statement, some of them (User:CJCurrie, User:Moreschi) blindly reverting without bothering to participate at all on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by ChrisO before, the notification was made only to users not registered/notified at the time of the ArbCom case - and thus to the SPAs. (The SPAs all happen to be on one "side".) This point has been made by ChrisO so many times that at this stage making the above statement is practically sanctionable. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ChrisO has given that "explanation" several times, but the problem is that it is false. I am one of those who received the notification - but I was registered at the time of the ArbCom. Not only that, but I had already been notified of the case, months before, as was clearly evident to ChrisO becuase it's still on my Talk page. It is also evident that he knew this because when he went to log his notifications, he somehow forgot that he had notified me, and logged only the notification of Tundrabuggy and Julia. Please cut out the nonsense that criticizing a questionable act by ChrisO is itself sanctionable - This is Wikipedia, not Stalinist Russia or Cuba, and we are allowed to question authority without fear of retribution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
oops! here we go again with the accusation that I am a SPA! Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this before making these accusations over and over again? My reputation at wiki has been damaged by ChrisO's assertion [47] which is being repeated by others who repeat it without personal verification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this...? Okey doke. Let's see: 93 total edits, 45 of them to Muhammad al-Durrah and its talk page, plus 5 to BBC claiming that they're biased against Israel. Knocking off the 17 edits to your own user space, then yeah, it's pretty much a textbook case of single-purpose account and not an "assertion". I'm certainly not seeing what reputation you have that's being "damaged" here. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked out CM's contention that "reportedly killed" has been consensus for some time, and that's just a fact. Since we are accusing those of us currently editing the page of 'promoting a conspiracy theory', perhaps some of these other users who have argued the point that this is a legitimate controversy and not a conspiracy ought to be notified that their position is now being relegated to 'conspiracy-theory' 911-conspiracy theory dustbin, subject to sanctions: 66.81.115.85 [48], bibigon[49], Humus Sapiens [50], Jayg [51], [52],KazakhPol [53], Slim Virgin[54], Netscott[55], Viriditas [56] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talkcontribs)
After Tundrabuggy was informed of the sanctions, the user edit warred, and so in my humble opinion, a ban / block could be applied. Stating the blindingly obvious, that doesn't apply to the editors listed above. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please put up the diffs demonstrating that I initiated an edit war. I argued my point (I have considerably more edits on the talk page than on the article) and was not the one that began edit warring, nor did I try to "finish" it. Please look closely. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you initiated the edit war. Nor does it matter that you argued your point. You edit warred after being notified of sanctions, and in this context a ban / block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please demonstrate with diffs. The use of the word "reported" had been established through consensus over the years. To suddenly rip it out without consensus is wrong, whether it is done by an admin or not.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus, as WP:NPOV states. If a previous consensus (and I'm doubtful whether this was really a consensus as opposed to going by default) reached a conclusion that violates NPOV, it can't be sustained. In addition, consensus isn't immutable. If a consensus was reached two years ago as you claim, don't you think it's about time it was reviewed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What you are doing is trying to justify your position by wielding one wiki "policy" after another as a club when others have disagreed with your POV. I certainly do not object to reviewing a consensus but as the WP:BOLD policy states

substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

The article had carried the word "reported" or "reportedly" for something like 2 years before you apparently changed it. It had been hammered out "after long and arduous negotiations." You have been adamant that you would not accept the previous consensus view under any circumstances, despite the fact that the latest verdict makes the "reported" tag more appropriate today than ever. Your means for achieving consensus was/is to knock off all the users who do not accept your POV, by logging warnings, then shopping for "uninvolved" admins in forums such as this and the WP:FTN who would apply a ban or a block on other users. Basically it is the politics of intimidation, some might call it "bullying." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you consider changing the article was 'wrong', then ok, that's your opinion. However, it doesn't justify revert warring. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here about the use of the word "reportedly." That word has been in the article for a couple of years, as I recall, and it seems to be the most accurate rendering — the boy was reportedly killed (i.e. was reported to have been killed) during the incident. There is actually no evidence that he died: no forensic evidence was offered by either side, and in fact evidence was destroyed, which is why there is a dispute. Having said that, most reliable sources accept that he died, with just a few notable dissenters. That is why "reportedly killed" was felt to be appropriate. It casts less doubt on the killing that "allegedly killed," or "claimed to have been killed," but it also does not imply that the killing is an undisputed fact. SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Reportedly" seems to be the better word choice in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"reportedly killed" indeed casts less doubt. Given the new doubts that now emerged does "allegedly killed" seems appropriate ? --Julia1987 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would say "reportedly killed" is still appropriate. There are indeed new doubts emerging, but it's nevertheless the case that the boy's death was widely reported, and so far as I know, most reliable sources would stick by those reports. I feel "allegedly" signals more skepticism than most reliable sources would say was appropriate. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As I've said on the article talk page, "reportedly killed" still gives far too much prominence to the conspiracy theory viewpoint. We do not say that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" landed on the Moon or that the World Trade Center was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft, even though there are some prominent skeptics on those issues. I did some research a few months ago to determine the relevant prominence of the POVs on this particular issue, using Lexis-Nexis and other databases, and found that (1) the overwhelming majority (thousands of works) state definitively that al-Durrah is dead; (2) there is no general agreement about who killed him; (3) a small number of articles (a few dozen works) describe a conspiracy theory that he is not dead and attribute it to two particular activists; and (4) a handful of articles (less than 10), mostly op-eds which we cannot use for statements of fact, endorse the conspiracy theory. This is clearly a situation where the undue weight provisions of NPOV apply. As WP:UNDUE says, "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The problem we are having is essentially the same as with the 9/11 articles: a number of editors have a strong personal belief in the conspiracy theory and do not accept either that it is a tiny-minority viewpoint among our sources or that policy requires tiny-minority viewpoints to be treated differently from overwhelming-majority POVs. These principles were very recently endorsed by the ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Principles. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Chris, it's a while since I've looked at this page, but my memory is that mainstream newspapers were reporting the doubts that he had died, and were discussing the video where he appears to have moved after the shooting. That he didn't die is still a minority view (so far as I know) but not a tiny-minority one. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A Lexis-Nexus search "a few months ago" would have been done before the France Appeals Court saw the available evidence in relation to the hoax theory, and said that it was not libelous to claim that Charles Enderlin & France 2 "knowingly mislead[ed] the watching world about the death of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000." [57]Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that, given the reliable sources on this issue and their respective prominence, the words "reportedly killed" reflect a fair and neutral compromise. On the one hand, we have some sources (including linked video footage, which I have viewed) telling us that the boy was not killed, and that it was all an act. On the other hand, we have many other sources who tell us he was in fact killed. Overall, it seems to me that there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version, so it makes sense to use the term "reportedly killed", as opposed to "claimed killed" or "allegedly killed" as suggested above. Crum375 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"More" sources? Try "nearly all". In fact, try "all" really reliable sources, judging by a cursory look. We don't push fringe viewpoints like this, particularly not in the first sentence of articles. Whichever 'consensus' arrived at "reportedly" was absurdly mistaken, or perhaps dated to before WP woke up to the problem summarised in WP:FRINGE. "Reportedly" is precisely the kind of weaseling fringers and truthers like to introduce, and its as unacceptable here as elsewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right, it's exactly the situation envisaged at the start of WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that The Beatles were a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth." To be fair to the people who arrived at the earlier consensus, they may not have done the kind of detailed research that I recently undertook to determine the relative prominence of the various POVs on this issue. It took some time, required some specialist databases and cost a fair bit (good thing I wasn't paying for it!) so it's understandable that not everyone would be able to do that sort of thing. But having now done it and obtained some firm empirical data which we didn't have before, we need to ensure that the article reflects it. By the way, when Crum says "there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version" he's understating it - the former outnumber the latter by a ratio of at least a hundred to one. The latter is a tiny-minority viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although what really happened there is unclear, the strongest source is the complete and uncensored video footage itself, which appears to show fakery, including in related incidents shot on the same day. The other sources are mostly interpretations of that footage. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely that's original research from a primary source? The fact is that reliable mainstream media sources all count the boy as having been killed. When the media report someone as dead, we have to take that as read. In virtually every case there is of course no "video evidence" of their death. The problem here is that precisely because there is some video evidence in the public domain, people with an agenda have taken it upon themselves to offer the world their own personal interpretation of those images, and to claim there is doubt as to what they show. However no source - even an unreliable one - has provided details of how the supposed hoax was carried out, or located where the boy is now happily carrying on with his life. This really has to stop, it's getting silly now. --Nickhh (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. The video I saw was primary, but it was accompanied by a POV source making the point while showing the footage. So you could argue the POV issue, but all sources have some POV, and that doesn't rule them out as sources. Also, in this case the footage speaks for itself. Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Rationalist magazine has published an interesting piece on the background to the conspiracy theories - see http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/78/p38_AR78.pdf . It's worth a read. The bottom line in this case is that some political activists are trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting a fringe hypothesis. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a one-page Op-ed, written by a work colleague of now-discredited FT2 freelancer Talal, written before the most recent court verdict. Why we should rely on this dated, partisan opinion piece rather than on current German TV reports calling the incident an "alleged murder" is for ChrisO to explain (unless of course, he succeeds in banning all his opponents as he is threatening to do) Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't advocated relying on it, as you very well know; all I said was it was worth a read. Please stop deliberately misrepresenting what I say; it's getting very tiresome. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sources who report doubts about the killing:

  • A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
  • An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
  • A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
  • The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
  • A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
  • Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

These are just some of the reliable sources who have published doubts about the mainstream view. We have to report those doubts dispassionately. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, SlimVirgin, you're an experienced editor; you know what WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR require. Your first and second sources are neutrally worded reports on the conspiracy theorists, attributing claims to them without endorsing them. Your third, fourth and fifth sources are all opinion pieces, which we cannot use for statements of fact. Your sixth source is a primary source and your comments about it are bordering on original research; it's not our job to analyse grainy videos on partisan websites. ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - WP:NOR). The article does indeed report the conspiracy theories (in rather too much detail, to be honest) but the key point is that any such reporting should be in proportion to the prominence of those views, as WP:UNDUE requires. That means we do not give tiny-minority viewpoints as much attention or weight as overwhelming-majority ones. But you know all of this. Why do I have to repeat this so many times? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote this article a few months ago to make it more neutrally worded, and I think the end result was okay. This is roughly the version I'd stand by. Since then, it's been battered back and forth by both sides, so I don't know what the current issues are. What I do know is that it's a statement of fact that the boy was reported to have been killed, and that several people -- including non-partisan, responsible people, such as the independent French journalists who investigated it -- have disputed the France 2 version of events. Some of them believe the boy is dead, but that he didn't die the way France 2 claimed, and others believe he didn't die at all. Their views have to be included, and the presentation of the views shouldn't serve to undermine them. Having said that, there are also some non-reliable sources claiming the boy's alive. This is why it's a difficult article to work on, because it needs cool heads to evaluate the sources fairly, and the back and forth reverting doesn't help to achieve that. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Difficult or not, the vastly overwhelming number of sources state as fact that he was killed, and saying anything other than that is unacceptable weaseling. SV, you know better than to inject that into articles. We report conspiracy theories, we never give them credence or support through our language. How many articles have been written about 9/11 truthers? How on earth does that mean we do not "undermine" their statements in our presentation? (After all, it is also a statement of fact that "allegedly" Al-Qaeda did 9/11.) We present the mainstream facts, and then the interesting point that a tiny fraction of sources dispute it. We do not say "allegedly" and "reportedly" and "supposedly", which is doing the fringers job for them. Relata refero (disp.) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's worth also pointing out that we have a standing presumption against using such language as words to avoid, for precisely the reason that you suggest. See WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. As that page says, such terms "serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "overwhelming number of sources" - all before the new verdict and all of them based on the single false report by France-2. --Julia1987 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't second-guess what causes the overwhelming number of reliable sources to form a conclusion, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
However, we must take into account new information as it appears and this is the crux of the issue now: court have heard expert testimony and ruled. You and ChrisO are as disruptive as people who would still cling to the theory of "flat earth" after a voyage around the globe have been completed.--Julia1987 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: when there are sufficient reliable sources reporting your novel interpretation of the court decision as fact, we will certainly change the article. May I suggest you find anonther article to improve till that time? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This has been repeated time and time and time again, to the point where Julia's actions may be crossing the line into simple disruption. One cannot synthesize one's own opinions into what a source states. There's no wiggle room there. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA known to be pushing this case[edit]

Can I draw everyone's attention to the fact that CAMERA, known to be trying to infiltrate Wikipedia, are taking a special interest in this case, with a massive 33 articles devoted to it.
CAMERA's director, Andrea Levin makes their intention clear: "CAMERA has taken some cautious steps into the non-English-speaking arena. One subject of particular interest is the Mohammed Al Dura issue. ... We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2." Under these circumstances, new SPAs should be treated not just with caution, but with suspicion.
It's important to recognise that this article does us no credit in the first place, being written to a one-dimensional "Israel suffers unfair allegations" narrative, when this incident (whether true or false) is much more important than that. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later. We're even specifically informed of this linkage at the CBS article we're citing 7 times - and yet, this real historical importance has been edit-warred out. (The obverse has happened too, the article on the Ramallah lynching is aggressively patrolled and all mention of Al-Durrah edit-warred out of it). As an Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... [at] a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol" - and that's largely what we should be aiming to document. This article was quite severely compromised before these un-labelled SPAs arrived, demanding that a fringe theory be high-lighted and BLP be broken. (I have no problem with documenting the real doubt about the origin of the shots, perhaps we should give this element some prominence and as much as 1/6th of the entire article).
Can we also take note that there have now been several examples of established editors carrying out deliberate cheating, often behaving as if they had complete impunity. In (all?) cases they seem to have been on good (even exceptionally good) terms with other established editors of a "similar" POV. This is another factor we should be worrying about, since it is dangerous indeed. PRtalk 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The "CBS News" article you're linking seems to be something else entirely - an outfit called Cybercast News Service, which I've never heard of before. I have no idea whether this is a reliable source or not. If you think it's worth quoting, I'd suggest taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard for verification first. Second, I don't think there's any evidence that CAMERA has been involved with our al-Durrah article, so I wouldn't want to point the finger in that direction without proof. The recent court verdict has been widely reported by conservative bloggers - it wouldn't be a surprise if some of them have linked to our article. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, please take a more conservative approach with potential CAMERA-Wikipedia connections. We also know, for instance, that in early 2007 Microsoft attempted to hire a blogger to edit a Wikipedia article. This does not mean Microsoft attempts to manipulate Wikipedia content at every article that relates to its business. DurovaCharge! 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may be paranoid. But we've now seen a number of really long-standing cheats caught out, and in each case they seem to think they've both got, and should have, impunity (in general, but in particular to sock-puppet abusively). Furthermore, each of the ones I've noticed seem to have been treated in an almost excessively collegiate fashion by editors who, IMHO, are themselves genuine but should definitely have known better. I fear the same thing is happening here, very suspicious behavior is being AGF'd well beyond the point where it's reasonable to do so. PRtalk 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been many more organizations, including highly partisan ones, pushing the view that the boy was killed, than the view that he wasn't. We don't ignore either view just because one or another side is particularly enthusiastic about it. We just report what the reliable sources have said, on all sides. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just so, in proportion to the prominence of each significant published viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Chris, do you have any significant recent reports that reject the doubts about France 2's footage? My memory of the sources is that the ones supporting France 2 are all very early sources, written around the time of the incident, when almost nothing was known. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't operate like that about extreme minority viewpoints, for good reason. Conspiracy theorists are not engaged by mainstream sources. See WP:PARITY. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but just why is this content issue being discussed in an ephemeral forum like WP:ANI. I move that the whole thread be relocated to the article's talk page. Kelly hi! 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, there are two important policy issues (interference by outside bodies with a special interest in this particular case and excessive AGF to editors apparently determined to trample policy), along with a general grouse about the content of the article. I have struck through the latter, I agree it doesn't really belong here. PRtalk 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is that it is here because the administrator who started the section (not this subsection, which is a different issue) thought that this was a more effective place for him to troll for people who would agree with the POV that he is trying to push into the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Umm, that would be everyone? This isn't WikiProject Pallywood, you know. Hardly canvassing! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Only one person started this section. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7's assumption of bad faith is tiresome but predictable. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

I’m choosing to write this here instead of on WP:SSP because this is a more difficult case. A couple of weeks ago, there was made a CheckUser request, for which the reason was vote fraud. On no.wikipedia, he has come clean, and the community has decided to give him a second chance, but here he got blocked. Of course he has created another account here, no surprise, User:Alive Would? Sun (confirmed on no:User:Superunknown). What should be done? Should he get another chance here too, or should he be blocked? — H92 (t · c · no) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since he's evading his block, no. The unblock procedures are well-known and if someone won't follow them, then they can stay blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If he re-establishes a good record on no.wp after some considerable time, then a proper unblock request here should be given careful attention. DGG (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd second DGG's proposal on this. Orderinchaos 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:FreedomByDesign[edit]

Disruption by FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

At the article est and The Forum in popular culture, a WP:GA-rated article:

20 April 2008 - FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs) removes large chunks of highly sourced subsections from this article - [58],[59], [60], [61].

At that time, I had added a note to the article's talk page to initiate discussion with the user [62]. There was never any response. Now, over a month later, the user comes along and removes the material again, and again with no discussion - [63].

This user's actions are disruptive and are putting the WP:GA status of this article at risk with his disruption. I would appreciate it if an administrator could look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have tried to engage the user on their talk page with something other than a templatized warning first. The user appears to be acting in good faith, I think, so engaging in a dialogue is paramount. I understand your frustration that they did not respond on the Talk page, but maybe they just didn't see it.
Let's see what FreedomByDesign does next. I hold out hope that this can be resolved through dialogue alone. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Like I said, it has been over a month since I added a note hoping to have discussion on the article's talk page at that time [64]. Hopefully the user will cease the disruption and engage in discussion, however if not more action may be required. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, but the editor may not have seen that, especially if he/she doesn't user their Watchlist. It's okay, you didn't do anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that you could have been a little more aggressive in catching the user's attention. No worries though! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages[edit]

Global warming pages have had a recurring issue for many months now with sockpuppets of a banned user: User:Scibaby. In response to the following two user accounts which are allegedly two more sockpuppets (here and here, whose edits aren't even disruptive), User:Raul654 took the step of fully protecting all pages global warming. He intends for this full protection to last "until we know he's lost interest," which seems to indicate an indefinite duration. This step was taken with no discussion before the fact, and after the fact discussion at global warming talk, which includes several editors, has overwhelmingly opposed this action in favor of continued vigilance against these sockpuppets and potential indefinite semi-protection. The blocking admin refuses to budge, though, so I figure this is the next place to go to get these pages unblocked. Oren0 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support indef. semi-protection, but full protection is excessively too much, unless of course, a full-scale edit war or something of that scale broke out. If Raul654 is refusing to budge, it sounds like he's attempting to create disruption and make a point with this protection. Seeing as he is using admin tools "to his advantage" it could be said, maybe a WP:RFC is warranted here to see if he has abused the tools with this. In any event, I think his protection should be reverted as many people are disagreeing with him. D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indefinite full protection seems excessive. Edison (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Though not necessarily agreeing with this, I can at least understand why Raul made the full protection indefinite as any limited time frame would only likely cause the sockpuppeteer to wait for expiry before resuming their crusade. It's a shame that there isn't some way of only allowing more established users from editing certain articles. Maybe in future some way could be found to allow only those with rollback rights to edit these high vandalism target articles, or would that be to difficult to implement? RMHED (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi-semi-protection. I like this idea. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oren0's description is both biased and factually wrong. The articles in question have been under attack by one determined banned user (Scibaby) since december. I semi-protected the articles several months ago, but that was ineffective at stopping him from editing them using sockpuppets. (He's the most prolific sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia, ever -- he's used 500 of them, and dozens/hundreds of IPs across many ranges. All of which have been blocked). Full protection is the logical next step. And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that full protection is inappropriate. I assume the articles are pretty heavily watchlisted, semi-protection should do the job just fine. Kelly hi! 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'd care to explain why we should expect semi-protection to start being effective when we've already tried it for two months without success? Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried" - At the time I placed my initial notice here, not one editor who had replied endorsed your protection by my interpretation (since then User:Stephan Schulz has). I agree that Scibaby is a problem; I've reverted his edits in the past as well. But I still maintain that this is entirely overkill. Vandalism comes with the territory on Wikipedia and if we're going to have a freely editable encyclopedia this is just something we have to deal with. Nobody is requiring you to monitor and continuously block IP ranges if you don't want to. We can undo the edits and get the users blocked when they become nuisances. And I'm not convinced that even your full protection will stop these socks. Another suspected sock has been editing hockey stick controversy and global climate model today. Do you want to fully protect those too? Where does it end? Oren0 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely Raul654 wants to keep these pages fully protected for very long. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you say that it sounds like Raul654 owns the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess so but I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Core, controversial articles nettled by sockpuppets are tough to handle, hence he's done something bold. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a hard call. There are repeated and annoying socks on these pages and the socks have tried lots of means to waste everyone's time deliberately. I see the alternative to protection would be blocking more aggressively and assuming good faith less when each batch of new accounts with 20 edits comes back and starts vandalising these pages. But that would have more risks in terms of damage to Newbies falsely identified and is more in the face of WP policy, which does accept protection for some things. Page protection isn't that much of a catastrophy on fairly mature pages, although no one wants it. Perhaps it is for the best for a bit? Alternatively don't blame Raul blame Scibaby. --BozMo talk 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, what is the reason for assuming all of the "dozens/hundrend" of individual IP's are this scibaby person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talkcontribs) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We don't assume anything. Their behavior from account to account is the same (inserting global warming denial propaganda - often using verbatim text and edit summaries), combined with checkuser results. Raul654 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it's obvious (he likes to insert the same bit about cow flatulence causing global warming on multiple pages). But some of them (like, in my opinion, the latest two linked above) are hard to identify sans the checkuser evidence. Oren0 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Scibaby, but I'd been struck by the similar way of working of the two you mention (as well as 3 others) on the global warming pages recently: small changes to intensifying adverbs, epistemological modifiers or modal verbs, which quite change the sense, marked as m(inor) without further explanation. The last one's preserved on the frozen Global Warming page. I didn't do anything, because i) the changes all got reverted and ii) I didn't know if it mattered that one person was running several accounts, if they weren't supporting each other on talk pages or the like. N p holmes (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My previous comment was overstated: similar way of working of one of the two, compared to 3 others. N p holmes (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had endless socks on these pages. Lets not get hung up on asking Raul about CU evidence - thats pointless. I trust him on that, without question, and urge Oreno not to worry about "alleged" socks. The issue here is what to do about these socks. My opinion is fairly close to what Bozmo said: There are repeated and annoying socks - buts thats all they are. They make minor, trivial, easily reverted POV edits. Global warming will suffer from these forever, whether scibaby exists or not. As soon as they do anything non-trivial, they can be recognised and blocked. Full protection - especially over so wide a range of articles - is overkill. A minor level of trivial vandalism is the price we pay for freedom, and we should be prepared to pay that price. Several of the protected pages weren't even semi before. Please can we have those, at the very least, restored to an editable state William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Protecting these pages seems a bit overzealous to me. The edits themselves are easily handleable and you are always going to get those kind of edits on a highly emotive topic such as global warming. Sure, we may not have the same powers as Raul here, but there are enough people watching these articles to revert any small POV or whatever by Scibaby and his many socks. Blcoking the IP ranges is fine by me, that's up to those in the know so to speak, but I definitely think these pages should be unprotected if they aren't already. Deamon138 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But also, the 'regular editors' should watch thier behavior as well. 'Undo's' need to at the very minimum come with a fair reason (preferably one that does not show a double standard.) Otherwise it's no different than what this scibaby is doing. Raul and others should respect that AGW is controversial. I personally have noticed a little vandalism, but not this huge amount being described. Raul should ask himself is this is really not just an attempt at justifying the blocking of others' opinions. This move looks to me like a serious abuse of power. And that's putting it lightly (Trust me, I'm being tolerant here.) I suspect others will see this as pure information control and the articles being protected will lose credibility as a result. --Sirwells (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot and must not institute systems of full protection on high-visibility articles as a matter of course. LaRouche-related pages is pushing it, these (and Names of China) are absolutely unacceptable places to do so. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of course - it's being done specifically in response to a sustained campaign by a resourceful banned user to disrupt the article. Every other method has been tried, and this is the last one in the cupboard. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "as a matter of course in articles targetted by resourceful banned users." And as for "last one in the cupboard" - I've checked the article, it looks fine. Are you sure the other processes weren't working? Or were you taking on too much of the load personally? --23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks fine because I'm spending an inordinate amount of time with checkuser hunting down his socks (an average of about two per day; about one hour per week on my part) and blocking them before they ripen. After 6 months, it's *quite* clear that is not tenable. And when I don't hunt them down (like earlier this week when I was traveling) nobody does anything about them. Raul654 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Do less, then. Behave like the rest of us when dealing with the resourceful banned users we know something about. When a particular edit that bears their hallmark turns up, check contribs and run rollback, and then apply for (or run) a CU - only if you think you haven't got everything. It works well with Hkelkar, who has a much larger set of target articles than scibaby. You might also want to write a summary of scibaby characteristics on a subpage and spam the link to users with those pages on their watchlist. There are many ways to handle this without abandoning our basic principle, the one on the top of every page. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
When you didn't pre-emptively deal with the socks, what did they do that required protection of the article? There's also a question I've asked down below about where the decision to apply full protection was discussed, if it was. And since when was Checkuser used to find and pre-emptively block socks? There are some Checkusers who, in my opinion, push the boundaries of the Checkuser policy. I think pushing the boundaries of policies can be good, but not a policy like Checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the page histories for the pages in question. You'll see that just about every day, a new Scibaby sockpuppet pops in to vandalize the article. And for every account that he manages to ripen, I block about 5 or 6 more before he can use them. That is *perfectly* acceptable - and in fact, desirable, versus letting him use each of them to vandalize before blocking them. Nor is it pre-emptive, since he's been going after these articles since december, long before I started actively hunting for him with checkuser. More to the point - the usual pattern is that he shows up with one account, and I'll checkuser it to find 5, 10, or even 20 more socks ripening. (So again, not pre-emptive) That's the reason for the protection. It's clear that semi-protection combined with blocking his socks, IPs, and IP ranges has not been suffecient to stop him. And for all the backseat driving on this page, nobody has suggested a solution other than page protection (Relata's suggestion of let-him-vandalize-and-block-him-afterwards is a big step backwards from the status quo pre-protection) No, I did not ask anyone about it beforehand - page protection has always been used to deal with high levels of vandalism (main page FAs not withstanding). Less so since the advent of semi-protection, but that does not obviate the need for full protection in cases like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talkcontribs)
Semi-protection is the solution that has been offered. Even if full protection had been left in place, you would still have had to keeping checking for his sockpuppets, wouldn't you? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The article were already semiprotected by me months ago. And, I'll say again for perhaps 6th time in this thread (and maybe some people will start to listen) - semi-protection was ineffective. The people "offering" to semi-protect the articles have failed to grasp that. If the full protection goes forward, will I keep checking for him? Yes, if I see him popping up again. Which I don't expect will happen. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and while I'm on the subject - if these articles aren't fully protected, then I will no longer be doing anything to deal with Scibaby. I have better things to do, both on wiki and in real life. All of the people who think it's not a big deal can deal with him themselves. Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What people were saying is that semi-protection was working, despite you saying it was ineffective. And I thought your checkuser runs and blocking of the socks was dealing with things? Why is full protection needed on top of that? Are you saying that full protection is being used to discourage Scibaby and make him go away? Finding out how he can produce so many sockpuppets (more than one person?) would get to the root of the problem. The message being sent here is that enough disruption of an article will lead to full protection. Why not try short periods of full protection instead? And I completely fail to see why dealing with Scibaby should be in any way conditional on the full protection. Full protection, checkuser, and ANI discussions are not bargaining chips with which to get the result you want. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see how people who haven't actually lifted a finger to deal with this problem could see how it doesn't seem all that bad. Even with the semi-protection, and the unacceptably large amount of time I have spent hunting him with checkuser, he still vandalizes the pages every day or two. Speaking as the person who has spent an inordinate amount of time on this issue, I say the situtation is untenable. And, to be frank, nobody is in a better position to know that than I am.
Are you saying that full protection is being used to discourage Scibaby and make him go away? - Yes. Finding out how he can produce so many sockpuppets (more than one person?) would get to the root of the problem. Be my guest. The message being sent here is that enough disruption of an article will lead to full protection. Yes, that's how both semi and full protection work. Is that supposed to be some kind of surprise? Why not try short periods of full protection instead - That's an acceptable first step. And I completely fail to see why dealing with Scibaby should be in any way conditional on the full protection. Full protection, checkuser, and ANI discussions are not bargaining chips with which to get the result you want. - I will not, under any circumstances, continue to spend the amount of time I have spent dealing with him. And if people want to continue with the semi-protection instead of full protection, then they are choosing to deal with Scibaby on terms unacceptable to me, and I will not be doing anything more to deal with this problem. If they don't value the time I've spent dealing with this problem to consider it sufficient to warrant full protection, then I'm not about to continue throwing in good money after bad - I have better things to do. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, this is a big decision to take. Was it just you that took this decision, or did you ask others? Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree absolutely. Full protection should be used sparingly and with caution. Too much protection can end up introducing bias through lack of free editing of the article, and more to the point, discourages people from editing Wikipedia. Admittedly, some article are not good places for newbies to start editing, as they may get bitten or blocked by a grouchy admin trying to "protect" the article and losing sight of the bigger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Raul654 has been a vocal opponent of full protection on high-visibility articles. He is the author and main proponent of Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles, despite perennial proposals for protection. Though I note that of the ones protected, only Global warming can be considered highly visible (at ~25,000 hits per day). This protection appears to be the result of extraordinary circumstances, not a protectionist leaning. --maclean 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the history of some of these articles and we seem to be doing a decent job of keeping the problem under control through use of rollback/undo/etc. I don't think full protection is a helpful measure here unless normal patrol techniques are shown not to be keeping up. Obviously it would be nice not to have to watch articles for this sort of vandalism, but that is the price of working with a wiki; at some point the measures taken to prevent vandalism can become more disruptive to our standard operation than the vandalism itself and I think that may be happening here. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the past 30 days history of edits on the global warming page. There's only 15 counts total of vandalism. That's only 1 every other day. --Sirwells (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not for lack of trying. Raul654 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As Maclean notes, Raul is strongly opposed to protecting the main page FAs, despite the utterly torrential vandalism those articles receive, so it's very surprising to me that he is pushing for full-protection here. It seems like something of a contradiction to expect admins (many, many admins) to revert vandalism (constant, horrible vandalism) on the main page FA, but feel that such a solution is inadequate in a case involving only one user who apparently is merely adding POV material ("propaganda")—as opposed to, say, the images of genitalia that often greet those who visit an main page FA. The only way I can make sense of this is to suppose that Scibaby is so vexatious to Raul that Raul has made it a mission to stop him by any means necessary, even though this isn't consistent with his usual philosophy.
If this vandalism is really such a serious problem as the proposed solution would indicate, I'd tentatively suggest instead that Scibaby be granted the right to engage in civil discussion on the article talk pages in exchange for stopping the vandalism. I don't know if he is capable of demonstrating the necessary restraint, but offering him an incentive to stop seems like a better tactic than this. Scibaby could always take his campaign to other articles if we protect these, since apparently he has limitless IPs, and this would mean we'd have to protect everything he decides to attack, ironically putting ourselves at his mercy to a greater extent than we do by having the articles unprotected. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am frustrated by this sock. I mean, look, once again here we are wasting time. We should go harder on those exhibiting the pattern. The good thing about Raul using CU is that he can catch them in bunches, which makes it more costly in terms of time spent to the villain than to the project. The bad thing is that the burden of time spent chasing the villain ends up on Raul. Perhaps if after running the cu other admins helped him with the blocks (Raul could provide a list)? That way we distribute the task of blocking and templating among many users. Brusegadi (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What about more CUs? Has the number of CUs kept up with site growth overall? - Merzbow (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We currently have 29 Checkusers. As far as I'm aware, logs are kept of every Checkuser action. The current situation is that the Checkusers can see those logs and keep tabs on each other's activities. My impression (and it may only be an impression) is that some Checkusers are more active than others, or to put it another way, two Checkusers that I see frequently popping into discussions to point out socks, or carrying out blocks, in many cases without a suspected sockpuppet or request for checkuser being filed are User:Raul654 and User:Thatcher. I'm not saying that anything untoward is going on, but I do fear that some Checkusers are more willing to use Checkuser than others (off their own bat and without being asked), and that does worry me a bit. I am aware that sometimes checkusers can and do need to be run without a formal request being made, but what I would like to see made available, to provide some sort of public check on this, is the activity of each checkuser. Simply a puiblication of the number of checkuser actions made each month by each checkuser. That would also help answer Merzbow's question about whether some checkusers are overloaded and trying to do too much, while others are mostly inactive (some only need it now and again). I'm going to start a separate discussion at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser and notify Raul and Thatcher on their talk pages to see if they have an opinion on this, and whether either is prepared to say exactly how much Checkuser activity they engage in. Notifying the other 27 en-CheckUsers might be an option, but I'll wait and see what response I get to this first. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser stuff moved to Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers. Checkuser stuff should be discussed there or at Raul's talk page. This thread should go back to discussing the protection issues for the Global warming pages. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I just counted. I've used checkuser 54 times in the last week, and all but 10 of those were on Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection for now[edit]

I think that in the first place this protection is procedurally defective. Raul is not an uninvolved user. If the request was made to RFPP, it probably would have been rejected due to insufficient activity. 15 vandalisms per month (and most of these articles are vandalized much less frequently) is par for the course in some topics. The protection—implemented by an admin with strident views on the subject—sends an uncouth signal of ownership. Indefinite full protection is a breathtaking response to this problem.

I've scanned this thread, and most of the minority users in favor of it appear likewise involved. Accordingly, I've kicked everything down to semi-protect. Please get an uninvolved admin to reset them, assuming it's really necessary. At this point, you have apparently not made your case. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is wrong. Uninvolved admins issue protection during edit wars between established users. Vandalism protection does not have to be done by an uninvolved admin. Ditto for those supporting that protection. Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you and Christopher Parham are right; I just saw a lot of reverts done by you. At any rate, there's no understanding of WP:PROT that can support indefinite full protection in this case, and the consensus is against it. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Again your understanding of policy is wrong. In cases where semi-protection is ineffective, we do use full protection. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection was simply not ineffective. The pages appear to be more stable now than in the past. They're well-watched, and there's no known reason to issue such a protection. Only one other case like this has been cited: LaRouche. These articles are not even in the same league as Lyndon LaRouche, where edit wars explode every time full protection falls off. Unilaterally implementing an idiosyncratic reading of policy against fairly clear consensus seems like wikilawyering to me. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's truly amazing to me that people who haven't lifted a finger to deal with this problem are so quick to proclaim that it's not so bad as to warrant protection. Unlike you, I have been dealing with this problem, and I am in a much better position to judge what is and is not effective - and I say the semi-protection has not been effective.
The articles have suffered from vandalism "only" every day or two because I have been spending an unaccetapbly large amount of time blocking his sockpuppets. For everyone account you see vandalize the article, there are 6 or 7 I block before they ripen. I will no longer devoting this kind of time to this problem. (In fact, if they go back to semi-protection, I will no longer spend any time dealing with this problem. As far as I am concerned, the people who dismiss this as a small problem unworthy of protection have volunteered to deal with it). Nor, as you claim, are they well-watched. While I was traveling earlier this week, Scibaby registered a dozen new accounts and made two dozen edits. And not a single person noticed, let alone block him.
As for policy, I'll say again (since you seem to have ignored it the last time I said it) that policy does support full protection where semi-protection doesn't work. In fact - shocking as it might seem - there was a time when semi-protection didn't even exist. We used full protection to deal with vandalism then, too. So your false claims about the protection policy not withstanding, yes, we do use it for vandalism, and we do use full protection where semi-protection is not suffecient. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Nor, as you claim, are they well-watched. While I was traveling earlier this week, Scibaby registered a dozen new accounts and made two dozen edits. And not a single person noticed, let alone block him." - Assuming you're talking about the two editors you've linked us to previously, those edits were barely disruptive. From the point of view of editors without checkuser, none of them were obviously Scibaby and without already being him none of them were blockable or even really warnable. There's nothing the rest of us could have or should have done given the knowledge we had until he stepped up to more divisive edits, at which time we'd deal with it. Oren0 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't "ignore" you. My answer was direct. In case you didn't see it: "semi-protection was simply not ineffective." Indeed, in some cases, semi-protection was not even previously tried. I didn't snap to this judgment. I looked through this whole thread and the talk page. Virtually no one agrees with you. I don't edit on this topic, but I can read a talk page.
If users are not making disruptive edits, it's not clear why it matters. If, for example, Wordbomb turned out to secretly operate a very productive admin account, I honestly don't care. I think your preemptive blocking strategy is a bit wrong-headed in this regard. You've made this workload yourself, and it's no reason to lock everyone from editing the page. Let's instead ban disruption as it emerges.
The policy does not support full protection where there is no consensus for it. Full stop. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the changes appear to be misguided attempts to improve the encyclopedia, which is not vandalism. If this actually was vandalism, you wouldn't have to resort to checkuser to ban the accounts. This is a POV war being conducted by a determined banned sock puppeteer. That's why I supposed your involvement was relevant, but I see now that there was no ongoing content dispute. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he appreciates your attempt to wikilawyer for him, but yes, getting yourself banned and then using sockpuppets to disruptively edit articles and push a POV is vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no content dispute at issue so involvement is irrelevant. That said, consensus here seems to lean toward semi-protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is the indefinite nature of the full protection that is not supported by policy. Full protection for a limited time would be acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the policy says much about when full protection can and cannot be used, and I don't think you are correct that full protection here would be in violation of the protection policy. Specifically, the policy makes no significant distinctions between the use of expiring and indefinite protection; only between temporary and permanent protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Then all Raul needed to say was that the protection was only temporary, not permanent, preferably in the log entry when he did the protection. It might have been obvious to him, but it seems it wasn't to others. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't expect it to be permanent, but I do expect to leave them that way for weeks or months until we know the coast is clear. Raul654 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fully protecting a range of articles from editing when they've been under assault for a long time is standard, and has worked well in the past e.g. with the LaRouche articles, which were similarly under attack from multiple sockpuppets. "Indefinite" simply means that the timeframe isn't known; it doesn't mean permanent. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The LaRouche articles are a he-said she-said advocacy-source disgrace, and nobody can fix them because they're permanently full-protected in violation of every policy written and a few unwritten. That's exactly the worst example to bring up. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tell me you're kidding, please. You think it is at all reasonable to pre-emptively FULLY PROTECT a dozen articles (some of which are only "potential targets for vandalism") for MONTHS, just to see if the "coast is clear"? Please, show other articles where such a level of response (draconian, IMO) is warranted and justified, because I'm not seeing it here. Achromatic (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go against apparent consensus here and say that I think in this case full protection is warranted. To those that say that it's not "fair" that this article gets full protection when the FA of the day doesn't... I think the vandalism is different, that vandalism is more easily automatically reverted. Also the load is spread among more people (I know that when my one and only FA so far SS Christopher Columbus, makes the front page (hopefully on Columbus Day 2008, :) ) I will be watching it as closely as I can). These articles are watched by a small set of folk, day in, day out. Further, maybe not full protecting the current FA is wrong, not right!!!... but if we are doing thing A wrong it is not an argument for doing thing B wrong too. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully-protect the main article and create an unprotected copy at Talk:Global warming/Draft article. Then transfer good edits from one to the other. This worked reasonably well at evolution, using Talk:Evolution/draft article to deal with the similar problem caused by User:Tile join. Tim Vickers (