Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive450

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

Noticeboard archives


Wikimedia.. Live![edit]

Resolved: not appropriate for ANI

you can see the opening ceremony here - I'm hoping for an ethnic soup of a dance with a light show and Jimbo being lowered on a wire..... we'll see! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing the purpose of this video? Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's live streaming from Wikimania... there's also a feed available here which works better for me - courtesy of the 'Wikipedia Weekly' team.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think this is the purpose of ANI. Regards, —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - what I meant to say was that there's an Incident occuring in Egypt right now! live! There are board members talking about administrators, and about all sorts of wiki related stuff, and I think some eyes and ears on the situation would probably help.... you can see what's hapenning here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard; the community portal, or at the very least AN, would be a more apt place for this. —Kurykh 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ban privatemusings from ever posting to ANI again? Please, relax people. He was simply giving us some information. No need to get all nuts about it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Review for User:Baron1984[edit]

The User:Baron1984 account was recreated approximately 10 hours ago. In that time the account has preformed a large number of POV pushing edits and/or edits with misleading/uncivil edit summaries.

In the two ~2 hours, the account has started to add unsolicited templates to User_talk: pages, which maybe misleading/confusing for those receiving them. In the last ~1hour, the account has started to be involved with what are turning into edit wars. The level of talk responses that this account has already attracted is quite large for the time period that the account has existed. Special:Contributions/Baron1984.

Could somebody with some outside expertise dive in and review the edits, summaries and User_talk:Baron1984 comments; possibly allowing a cooling off period and checking that the account is not a sockpuppet/continuation of an earlier account. —Sladen (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz has terminated his membership. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Need info on WP policies regarding pro-Nazi users[edit]


I'm an admin on FA:WP.

We usually base our policies on EN:WP. So I thought I'd ask you guys, instead of Meta.

Are there any EN:WP policies regarding users that exhibit pro-Nazi edits? Or users with pro-Nazi user names?

I have a user on FA:WP that has awarded other users a barnstar (actually a Nazi medal insignia) with a swastika on it.

How would you guys deal with such occurences? Are there any laws anywhere that addres such issues? Thanks.--زرشک (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we're pretty much laissez-faire with people who hold such opinions, as long as they are kept civil and neutral in the article space. For example, we have an admin, El C, who has a self-admitted left-wing slant, but at the same time, he keeps civil and doesn't let his feelings influence his article contributions. Sceptre (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, that is not correct. Usernames which may cause problems can (and have been) blocked, and barnstars with inflammatory imagery have been deleted. Horologium (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Our username policy (Wikipedia:Username policy) specifically prohibits "Offensive usernames (that) make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.", and I would term some of the more pro-nazi usernames as meeting that criteria. As for userboxes and barnstars, I think an argument used previously in deleting such things was that it "did nothing to contribute to the building of the encyclopedia", which is true as far as it goes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No barnstar "contributes to the building of the encyclopedia." Beam 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, yes they do if they contribute to the morale and act like a carrot to improve editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn't read the thing about usernames, sorry: yes, they can be blocked. But as far as opinions, as long as they don't interfere with building an encyclopedia, they're okay. Sceptre (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comparing pro nazi with left wing is comparing apples and oranges by a few orders of magnitude. A user who made pro nazi edits and awarded another user a barnstar with a swastika would get an indefinite block from me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the preceding sums it up rather well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the barnstar issue, I found this in the recent archives:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152#Offensive Barnstar. It was nuked. Horologium (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, barns stars are generally seen as one of the ways that the community interacts with each other - and it's generally accepted that all communities need some "glue" and this is one such manifestation. While the article space needs to be NPOV, the reality is that userspace is not for a lot of fairly complex reasons. The community gives people a lot of freedom in their userspace *but* it has it's limits and part of that relates to disruption. Leaving aside, the contempt most of us having for Nazi ideals, the presence of a barnstar using a swastika as a sing of affirmation and "reward" would be disruptive and would be nuked from space as soon as it was used here for that very reason. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately if I were to block this user for awarding another user a Swastika barnstar, many folks would demand to know on what policy is my decision to block the user based on. Are there any policies to base this on, or is it merely the perogative of the admin? Again, any thoughts are appreciated.--زرشک (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That racial divisive barnstars are disruptive and do nothing to promote the core goal of building an encyclopaedia. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Swastikas/fylfots do have legitimate non-Nazi-related uses even in contemporary culture, but obviously users should take care with such things. I see the specific example you raise really is a Nazi medal, but I just wanted to highlight that fact so that we don't accidentally throw the baby out with the bathwater! :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific policy at en.wp, but there might be at some of the other languages. While it's not hard-and-fast, many of the language sites (German, Polish, Norwegian, and so forth) are dominated by members from a single country, and that country's laws may influence policy. It's not at all far-fetched to imagine that the German Wikipedia would have policies specifically banning such activity, as German law is quite strict on that issue. Perhaps you can find a bilingual (English/German or Farsi/German) user who can find that out for you. (Sorry, I speak about two dozen words in German; I won't be able to help.) Horologium (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the intersection of Category:User de and Category:User fa seems to be empty. :-( You might like to look at just the members of Category:User de, I guess you at least have English in common with them (if they're editing on en-wp, stands to reason they speak the language). --tiny plastic Grey Knight 16:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

← Look, I'm just one admin, but I would readily block someone making "pro-Nazi" edits and awarding Nazi medallions as barnstars, and not think twice about it, wikilawyering notwithstanding. The day we need to cite chapter and verse of policy to block someone who's come here to promote Nazism is the day this project officially becomes unworthy of volunteer effort. MastCell Talk 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

People making pro-Nazi comments, or anti-Semitic comments, or denying the Holocaust, or having an obviously Nazi-sympathetic barnstar or other indication are routinely indefinitely blocked. There isn't a policy about this, per se. Its just standard practice, similar to how the ArbCom routinely blocks or supports the indefinite blocking of pedophilia activists or self-professed pedophiles. Its important to respect varying points of view, even those that are in some ways objectionable, but certain positions are anathema to a collaborative environment. Avruch T 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, editors self-identifying as Nazis and making edits promoting fascism, etc., are blocked as a matter of practice rather than explicit policy. I guess that's because such editors are also typically disruptive in some way or another, and are blocked for inserting racist slurs into articles rather than for identifying as Nazis as such. That's probably why we've never needed a policy to that effect. There is consensus, though, that divisive and inflammatory extremist behaviour in general is not allowed, as reflected in e.g. WP:CSD#T1.  Sandstein  21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We may have an issue here with differing standards by different communities. Without attempting to characterize any editor on any particular wiki, I would imagine that most of the users on the Farsi Wikipedia are Iranian. The current Iranian government has actively promoted some of the more odious elements of Nazism's views towards Judaism, and that may be aggravating the situation. I understand Zereshk's frustration in attempting to identify a policy under which such antics can be grounds for dropping the banhammer; I don't think one exists here. It isn't tolerated at all here, through community consensus rather than formal policy. Do we have anyone who is active on he.wp? I suspect that they have a formal policy on the topic. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE not working[edit]

What happens when reports filed at WP:ABUSE doesn't solve the problem? I've had a report filed at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/69.19.14.xx for a couple of months. It had early activity in solving the problem, and the behavior ceased for a short while, then the person behind these addresses continued. I'm not criticizing neither WP:ABUSE nor the person assigned, but I'm not seeing the value.

Very brief and sporadic vandalism (no AGF here, the contribs which I've reported are falsifying dates and other information). It's like a splinter under your fingernail. I'd like to get it taken care of, but WP:AIV won't work, since the standard 31 hour blocks won't solve their patterns; and WP:RBI is getting wearisome. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a range block work here? It's a sufficiently narrow range.-Wafulz (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would request a range-block, but I'd be concerned about diffs like [1] [2] which are valid (good faith) edits from an IP in the same range, so I'd suspect it's a different person at that point (or perhaps another person in the same household, I'm getting the feeling that this might be a very young child. no real evidence, but just a hunch). Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see if and when the ISP has been contacted, and what the replies have been if any. If there hasn't been any replies yet, it might be a good idea to mail them with a last warning, along the lines of "if you are unable to take action, we are forced to block the range. In the block message you can tell them to bug their ISP, but in more suble wording. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The worker on the case marked about half of my earlier IP reports as done, so I'm going to take it that there was some sort of ISP contact. Should I nudge the worker on the case? I'd hate to be pushy and all that, but the last action posted by the worker was a little short of two months ago. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd that there would have been contact about part of the IP's. The whole point of these kind of things is that we contact the ISP, to help with things we can't do. In this example, find out who was at the adress, if it was the same person, and take action against that person. The ISP would need all the adresses for that. A friendly nudge to ask how he is doing on the report, and if there has been any email contact yet could just do the trick. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Josh Hamilton = Josh Hamilton (baseball) ??[edit]

Resolved: Not Spartacus

User:Josh Hamilton created his account on July 17, 2008[3]. According to him, he is Josh Hamilton, the baseball player. Five minutes after creating his account, he supported the RfA of User:Finalnight[4]. I think an admin should review this. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him until he has a chance to confirm his identity to OTRS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you did a right thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be prudent to unblock per the user's request for Wikipedia:Changing username? Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, because he's also asserting on his user page that he's the ballplayer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
[5] I don't see the claim anymore. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I removed it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, is it really wise to block someone who may actually be the person in question? It might be tenuous, but perhaps discussion would have resolved this. Or WP:RFC/N Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, either he is the person in question, in which case I don't expect that he'd mind being asked to prove it, since it's for his protection (and I did ask quite politely) or he isn't, in which case he shouldn't be unblocked under any user name. I haven't dealt with the unblock request because it should be dealt with by an uninvolved admin, but I don't see a lot of reason to unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly question, but what is the threshold for blocking a user who claims to be a famous person unless they verify? Stephen King, Tom Cruise, David S. Goyer, Joss Whedon? What if its some author with 2-3 books to his name? Whats the threshold? Just curious. rootology (T) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast threshold. I would put it as simply, "enough name recognition." —Kurykh 07:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"Do they have an article?" is the most sensible way (why create another set of criteria when we have one?), although this presupposes our notability criteria are effective and at the right level. Neıl 09:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In this case, it is likely that User:Josh Hamilton is an imposter. He supported the RfA of User:Finalnight[6] few minutes after creating his account. Why would Mr. Hamilton, a baseball player, be interested in the RfA of Finalnight? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
He also "proved" his identity by providing me with an official sounding e-mail address...for a domain that was registered yesterday. I'd say we can mark this resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a fine line between assuming good faith reasonably, and being silly about it. In a related story, I am actually Babe Ruth. You only thought he was dead. Trust me! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks[edit]

Our old Korean-Japanese hotspot article Liancourt Rocks is flaring up again, after being quiet for about half a year. The suddenness of the disruption (multiple disruptive throwaway accounts making either lame revert edits on the article or disruptive POV rants on talk, from both nationalities) leads me to believe there's again a coordinated campaign off-wiki. Please help watch. I've been blocking anything on sight that looks like part of the campaign, going as far as immediate indef-blocks with no warnings after a single edit. Given the intensity and stubbornness of disruption we've seen on this article, I stand by this rather extraordinary measure. Fut.Perf. 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been some sort of recent news stuff about it [7] - I expect that has something to do with it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Condoms, will people ever learn? Beam 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
wikipedia has historicaly been viewed as a battleground for this issue yes. Can't find anything in english but there are korean and perhaps japanese blogs floating around that meantion the article that suggests there may be some online campaining specific to the article.Geni 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah here we are a group called VANK are probably involved. Sigh can't we just use the island for nuclear testing and have done with it?Geni 16:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
And this would appear to be the appeal.Geni 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nuclear testing would probably leave some bits and pieces above the water. We need something that would cut the islands off well below sea level. --Carnildo (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We could try air-dropping a copy of a few WR-related ANI threads on the islets, perhaps? That should finish them off. Fut.Perf. 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Only if we could send a few of our most "famous" vandals there prior to the air-dropping. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Help Desk is catching it in the earhole; personally I don't want to touch the entry in case I get people shouting at me, but maybe somebody should have a word with the angry mastodon? --tiny plastic Grey Knight 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this disruptive title moving vandalism by a new editor can't be done by none but Japanese. I believe 2channel's systematic meat/sockpuppetry began active like this.[8] Former or banned editors are returning to gear like a war or new editors provoked by the recent controversies around Japanese Government's history book revision emerge. Besides, summer vacation is pretty long. The article is not the only one to occur edit warring. Comfort woman, Sea of Japan, Korean Strait and all are all in this same vein. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is sudden disruptive activity from both sides, that's for certain. Anyway, thanks to Geni for finding that Korean link. Fut.Perf. 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone ever notice the astonishing similarity between the map of the East and West Islets to Jonathan Swift's drawing of Lilliput and Blefuscu? Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokes aside, it needs to be said that Liancourt Rocks is currently only one minor side issue in the much larger field of Japanese-Korean conflicts. The most disruptive at the moment seems to be comfort women, where a bunch of Japanese editors are persistently trying to whitewash Japanese war crimes and relativise them with tendentious accounts of Korean actions. I think we need to lower the bar for forceful admin intervention (quick blocks, topic bans for tendentious editing et cetera), to somewhere near Balkan level on Korean-Japanese issues in general. Assuming that there'll be community consensus to do so, I guess I'll just start doing that. Fut.Perf. 11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think FPaS gets half the thanks he deserves for being the one who takes on quelling so many of these nationalist flashpoint disputes. Thanks FPaS. Neıl 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks :-) (/me bows deeply.) But please help watching the area too, it takes at least two or three dedicated admins to do such a thing successfully. Fut.Perf. 11:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I do have Liancourt Rocks bookmarked now, and will help out where I can. I did make a special template for the page! :) Neıl 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, is Spartaz really not coming back? He was doing a good job to the article too....-Caspian blue (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Spammers using different IPs to add external links[edit]

Some spammer is adding this external link FREE CCNA Practice Exam Questions] to Cisco Career Certifications from different IP addresses as this this2 this3 I reverted these edits and gave a general warning not to add them again each time. At the third instance , I gave a Final warning at User talk: How do I proceed here as the spammer uses a different IP every time ( so no point reporting to WP:AIV..Please advice -- Tinu Cherian - 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth attempt today -- Tinu Cherian - 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If there's a problem, I suggest you file a spam report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, instructions there. The URL to be blacklisted is likely to be x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Or you go over to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection of the indicated page. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna spam-blacklist the url locally, since other IPs seem to be contributing on the article. -- lucasbfr talk 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- lucasbfr talk 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When I reported this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, I got a message that it is already backlisted. Is there anything I should do ? -- Tinu Cherian - 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This should be fine, we'll keep an eye open, but if they are persistent they may change domain to go around the blacklisting. If that happens, just poke WT:WPSPAM again. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Dirk Beetstra, another attempt by a registered username was reverted. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Four separate cases, a common thread, and I have no idea what to do about it[edit]

We need to, as a community, decide how we are going to handle the situation of a page in user space that, while not quite an attack page, exists for airing grievances or making a point about specific editors. I know it is theoretically prohibited under WP:UP#NOT point #9, but it doesn't seem to always work out that way.

There are at least four borderline cases I am looking at right now. In each case, other editors raised objections to the material in question, WP:UP#NOT was pointed out, but the editor with the user page feels the page is allowed and refuses to budge. In a couple cases I have sought admin enforcement, but there does not appear to be a consensus among the admins on how to deal with this.

So now I am forced to tell people, "Well, I think it's against policy, but I can't get anyone to enforce it, so... uh... maybe we can beg him to compromise?" Not fun.

The following links all contain content to which at least one user has objected, which I feel runs afoul of WP:UP#NOT, and which the creating editor refuses to remove:

(Even though the last two are in User talk space, the user has made it clear they wish it to remain a permanent fixture of their talk page and do not wish for other users to reply in the same section) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GHcool may still be on vacation, so maybe we should continue to wait on that one. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh, let GHCool have his little propaganda page. His command on "references" makes him a "good" editor, so I don't see him going away any time soon. Not that I'd even want him too! Beam 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
my case should not be discussed here as is now the subject of a suspected sock puppet case and that case should take primacy. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The page, User:Abd/Allemandtando is, as is noted, the subject of an MfD, which is currently heavily Keep. It's not a page as described by Jaysweet, not a page for "airing grievances." It's actually a neutral page, intended to be a compilation of facts (diffs, edit summaries), which has now been used, as Allemandtando points out, as an evidence page for an SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), because, when I finally started compiling it today -- the page was almost blank when the MfD was filed, though it was created two weeks ago (and was the subject of comment in AN/I by Allemandtango within a half hour, obviously somebody is watching my edits -- I saw a very strong correlation between Allemandtando's registration and an edit of mine to an AfD that he dove into the next day; I'd suspected Killerofcruft -- his name when he registered, less than a month ago -- of being Fredrick day before, but this made it likely, and I'd missed the connection. Fd is known to stalk me, was a popular deletionist editor, and, when unmasked, shown to be, as an IP editor, thoroughly and very reprehensibly uncivil, with gross vandalism of user pages, and other disruption. Killerofcruft was clearly disruptive, was the subject of two AN/I reports within days of registration, and I could go on and on, but won't. The SSP report isn't a user RfC. It is purely a statement of a reasonable suspicion that Fd has returned as Killerofcruft. Fd has claimed that he had other accounts, so I would not take a simple connection between Fd and another account as conclusive. One account previously suspected to be Fd, and now "retired," -- and who had a good record, and was only suspected because of an odd edit from an exact IP known to have been used numerous times by Fd -- could have come back, for example. But Fd very likely had numerous sock accounts, and Fd would not be his oldest account. Fd was a single-purpose account, dedicated to AfDs, and was not naive on registration.--Abd (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You left out User:Nishidani. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
@Beam: I never suggested for a second that GHcool be sanctioned, I just question whether it is appropriate that the "Views" page calls out specific editors -- more than one of whom has complained about it.
@Jayjg: I just took a look at Nishidani's user page for the first time, and while it's a bit WP:SOAPy, I don't see where it calls out specific editors, which is my main concern with the four pages I brought up here. Not that I'm saying it's perfectly fine, I just think it's potentially a different problem.
@Everybody: Well, the lack of response is telling me that the community is not interested in enforcing WP:UP#NOT point 9. Which is fine, I suppose, I'll just tell the folks who are offended by these pages that there's nothing they can really do about it. I'd suggest revising WP:UP#NOT if we're not going to enforce it, though... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UT#NOT points to Wikipedia:Utilities, a historically inactive page. Perhaps the link is wrong? Chillum 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, sorry... I noticed that about the same time you did, and I went through all of the places in this section where UT was mentioned and replaced it with UP -- and accidentally changed your comment too because I didn't notice you'd added it. Sorry!
I had looked at the relevant section via the shortcut shortly before posting this, and somehow I figured it wasn't UP for User Page, but UT for User Talk. My bad. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh I have context. Now, if the page serves no other purpose than to attack another user then WP:CSD#G9 applies, if the page has a reasonable purpose other than attacking someone then it is a matter for WP:AfD. We have policy to address this. I would say all four examples shown in the first post of this thread are AfD fodder. I think telling anyone that we don't enforce WP:UP#NOT section 9 would be a misrepresentation of reality. Chillum 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There was an MfD on GHcool's user page quite some time ago that resulted in no consensus. An ongoing MfD on Abd's page got stalled because of other circumstances, but it wasn't look very good either. MfDing the other two would be awkward at best, because it is a single section of the User Talk page that is the problem. I could try that, but I'll bet you a hundred WikiBucks that it doesn't result in any action. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If the community does not decide the content should be deleted then that is the way it goes. I don't understand the bet you offer, if the MfD didn't turn out how you wanted just go to DRV. Some policy is enforced by the opinion of one person, ie CSD, other policies are enforced by consensus such as WP:NOT and WP:USER. It does not mean that the policy is not enforced, it is just that it is enforced by consensus, not the strict letter of the rules. Chillum 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not one of those four pages has any purpose in building a better encyclopedia. It shouldn't have to go to MFD, and the wikilawyering by some to get their rubbish kept is tedious, to say the least. I also have no idea why Jayjg thought it was a good idea to creat User:GHcool/Views. I would delete/remove them all, put a explanation on each user's talk page making sure to mention WP:SOAPBOX, revert and warn anyone who restored the content, blocking them on a second offence. Neıl 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Well, yes and no. There is no need to re-establish community consensus for every policy enforcement. Or perhaps we should start a new !voting process called WP:Vandalism for reversion, and before you revert vandalism we have to get consensus at WP:VfR? heh... I don't mean to make light, but my point is that the community consensus on this is highly unclear, and WP:UP#NOT does not seem to reflect the ambiguity. People come to me and say, "Hey, 'perceived flaws' aren't allowed on user pages, but this guy lists perceived flaws," and I say, "Yeah, he does, but all I can really do is ask him nicely to remove it." And surprise, most people say no.
Note that none of this involves me personally. I'm just growing increasingly frustrated because I'm not sure what to tell people to do in these situations. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Neil, the community has repeatedly rejected the idea of deleting pages due to WP:NOT without an XfD. If you think this should be different the go to the policy talk page and make a proposal. These arguments for deletion belong on XfD, not ANI. Chillum 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll try MfD, but when inevitably someone asks me, "Why is a user talk page at MfD?!", I will say, "Chillum made me do it!" (Or perhaps, I could create a page User:Jaysweet/Chillum made me do it.... It's not speedyable as long as I have at least one section on the page used for something productive, right? Hmmm... ;p ) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't say "Chillum made me do it!". Say "Policy requires that deletion based on this sort of policy violation should be based on consensus". Come now, lets get to the heart of the matter, it is not me, it is the way we have done things for a rather long time now. Ideally the closing admin would take into account the fact that a person's argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of policy. Chillum 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I am not literally going to say "Chillum made me do it" ;) However, I am also not going to say "Policy requires..." because my interpretation of policy and past community consensus is different here. First of all, I did not think XfD was the proper venue for removal of a section of any page. Secondly, I have seen content that violates other parts of WP:UP#NOT removed on sight.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'm not convinced that you're right either. So, what I would likely say in that case is neither "Chillum made me do it" nor "Policy dicates...", but rather, "It was suggested to me based on [permalink this ANI thread] that MfD was the proper recourse for violations of WP:UP#NOT." Fair 'nuff?
In any case, I am giving Posturewriter and Romaioi some advance notice that I plan to do the MfD, in case that makes either one of them change their mind and decide to remove the content in question on their own. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if you can point me to a specific policy that says "Inappropriate content on a User page or User talk page should only ever be removed by consensus via the MfD process," I'll apologize profusely and then shut my mouth. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I see also user:JaapBoBo. I think it can be seen in contradiction with WP:UP#NOT points 7 & 8. Ceedjee (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've known some user subpages to be deleted unilateraly as not useful, not with any XfD. (Not saying that should happen here, just saying. I think it might be a bit rude actually to delete stuff in someone's userspace except in exceptional attack-pagey circumstances.) Sticky Parkin 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Strangeness at The Wizard (film)[edit]

Someone seems to have replaced the page with some vandalism I can't find. It's been replaced with a Celtic cross and the message "This is Zodiac speaking. I have recently bean informed about your litle website. You canot ex cape me.". Any idea how to fix it (or how to find this person)? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A vandal hit one of the templates used in that article. --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. But which one? Most of them are protected already. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it's been fixed. It was {{who}}, and User:BettyLouJensen did it. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The same thing is happening at User:Nousernamesleft/desk/qin. Which template is it? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

National Review opinion piece regarding WP Admins, on[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This whole discussion reminds me of a Roadrunner cartoon, where the coyote falls victim to his own trap. This has gone so far off topic, it's wrapped around and met itself again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: Nothing new here, climate change deniers incensed that Wikipedia reflects the dominant world-view; in other news Pope stated to be Catholic, study says bears shit in woods Guy (Help!) 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved? Ha, that's funny. What's been resolved in this? Or do you mean that you are resolved to keep your head in the sand on this issue? :) --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia Is A Stunning Example Of How The Propaganda Machine Works

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

I saw a link to this article on a industry message board where 99.9% of the posts are industry related and not related to politics, global warming, wikipedia, etc.

Just FYI but information that administrators should know about, at least what is being written about WP. Chergles (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not really from CBS News; it's an opinion column in the National Review. Looks like there's already discussion of the essay at Talk:Naomi Oreskes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
National Review has no particular biases themselves, though. In fact, NR is kind of leftist itself - a tad to the left of The American Spectator, anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 17

July 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious from the talk page citations of Naomi Oreskes that the guy is a moron who has a bone to pick. Nothing else needs to be said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you can think this if you wish, but the fact of the matter is that he has a platform based on observed experience and his points have found their way into two undeniably mainstream media outlets. Whether you agree with him or not is irrelevant, his piece serves to undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a resource and ignoring that fact won't make the problem go away. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh...its National Review...and the opinion of a GW skeptic to boot. Maybe, if the editor who wrote that piece can refute the findings myself and others made when writing Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and come up with some other explanation than global warming, then it sure would be nice to see it. I tend ot be rather conservative on some issues, more so than the average wiki editor, and we looked long and hard for evidence of glacial advance and found almost none documented anywhere worldwide.--MONGO 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In matters of science, I'm more inclined to believe National Geographic than National Review. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Thinks the topic should read "Attack article from NRO reaches, no one cares") SirFozzie (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Small correction, no one at Wikipedia cares. I am sure the people reading those pieces will care ... especially given that they won't have the benefit of the viewpoints being expressed here. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec with multiple editors) Thinks SirFoz is helping NRO prove its point. If Solomon is right, and I'm too tired to look it up now, the attack articles would be on Wikipedia. Having worked in the trenches on this kind of thing, nothing in Wikipedia could surprise me. Actually, come to think of it, bias in Wikipedia, in principle, wouldn't surprise anyone posting in this thread, would it? Face it, when it comes to political controversies, especially anything that makes more than a couple of people livid, Wikipedia's consensus method stinks like piss pot in an asparagus farm. It's harder for a lot of people to put aside their politics than they think it is. You know exactly what a Wikipedia article on Negro would have looked like if this encyclopedia that anyone can edit were around in, say, the 1920s. So don't brush off the problem. I don't have the time to get into whether or not Grossman is correct, but when a respectable publication runs an article saying this website has biases, not taking it seriously is close to the worst reaction we can have. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the sentiment. But of course, when more editors are "left", that's what happens. And it's ok, if the people of the "right" had the ability to find good sources and worked at it they could tilt the articles a little bit if they cared to. Beam 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, that’s the theory, but in practice where articles on controversial topics are concerned, the most ardent partisans are the most active at keeping contrary information out. Less motivated editors tend to move on rather than keep on wasting their time in unproductive editing. It’s a problem that Wikipedia has not yet found a good solution for. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto this. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does William Connely really do that stuff? Beam 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the answer to this depends on whether you agree with him or not. The incidents cited in the article certainly happened. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeeech. I don't know whether I'm more disturbed by the fact that notable sources are calling wikipedia biased, or by the "whothefrakcares" attitude that is apparently the primary wikipedia response. I've half a mind to email Oreskes a link to this discussion just so she'll have a nice followup article. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The same notable sources that brought us Conservapedia? I'd be more worried if they DIDN'T call us biased, to be quite honest. SirFozzie (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The odd thing is that, we get criticized for having articles written by random laymen who don't know anything about the subject they're contributing on. Here we have an eminent, published scientist who has done extensive work and research in the realm of climate modeling contributing... and because he's edited the article to make clear the scientific viewpoint, that's illegitimate bias! So, experts should contribute but... not in the field that they're expert in? Is that what this guy is saying? FCYTravis (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you over-rate WMC's impact here ... and that's not me talking it appears to be the opinion of his supporters on his BLP where they are arguing that Solomon's assertion that WMC may be the second most influential person in the AGW debate (due to his activities here on Wikipedia) is (in their words) absurd. Even so, Solomon's point is not that WMC shouldn't be allowed to contribute ... but rather that his degree of influence over the GW pages is excessive. This view is held by many here at Wikipedia as is amply demonstrated by his history within RFCU and RfA's over time. There are always plenty of people taking this same perspective ... just not enough to drive home a consensus on the point. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
He's saying that since Wikipedia doesn't support the minority viewpoint regarding GW, a viewpoint that he shares, that it must be because we're biased. And that folks like Connolley, who have studied the facts and seen the evidence first hand, who are only trying to keep minority viewpoints from being given a larger portion of representation than they deserve, must be biased. The undue weight clause of WP:NPOV is one of our prime policies particularly due to the need to keep minority viewpoints from overtaking the quantifiable evidence.--MONGO 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, he's saying that they tactics used to keep out contrarian viewpoints introduce a systemic bias. Your mileage may vary on whether you agree, or not, but the tally seems to fall along ideological lines which suggests there is some truth to it. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT is (probably out of necessity) very vague. It's basically a judgment call each time to say just how much we should include from minority views, and those judgment calls rely on a consensus of editors with judgment. Which tends to be lacking if the debate gets heated. I'm coming around to the idea that WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK are each about ten times more improtant than WP:NPOV. (I'll take it on faith that everything you say about Grossman and Connolley is true.) Noroton (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed an issue with the wiki rules. I.m.o., the wiki rules are too much focussed on the politics articles, they are not good guides for editing the wiki science articles. The global warming article is written from the scientific point of view. This is how most wikipedia articles on scientific topics are written (by consensus of the editors). It is not correct to say that global warming is a controversial topic. In the scientific community it is not controversial, there hardly are any "contrarian views" published in the leading peer reviewed journals. We don't consider any other sources reliable enough for science articles.
What happens on the global warming pages is that from time to time some editor who usually edits politics articles comes along and argues that our own rules for reliable sources are in violation of WP:RS. This happened yesterday and I wrote that this is irrelevant, because either WP:RS agrees with the standard we use (which is simply that a source is reliable if and only if it would be acceptable for a scientist to use in one of the leading peer reviewed journals) or it doesn't. If it doesn't then that is a problem for WP:RS and one should discuss that on its talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, to claim the scientific journals are apolitical is hogwash. The scientific community is every bit as political as any other community. Factions form within the community and the members of those factions support one another precisely as part of the peer review process. The editors of the journals are perfectly able to shift the balance of what gets published and what does not by simply cherry picking the referees. It doesn't take a genius to know that this can and does happen. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Taking a step back from the specific article and even from global warming, Count Iblis, do you doubt that -- in principle -- politics can taint both the scientific community and by extension Wikipedia? Other than watchful humility on the part of all of us, I don't see any way we can avoid it. Noroton (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that could happen, especially not in a field so large as climate science were thousands of scientists are active in. It may be the case that more scientists are left wing compared to the general population. But that's simply because a left wing world view is more compatible with science than a right wing world view. The same can be said about atheism. E.g. almost all cosmologists are atheists for obvious reasons.
It is hard to see how politics could influence a discipline such as climate science. You do some technical research write up the results and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Then you get a Referee report. How could politics have an impact in such technical exchanges? The only way I can imagine would be if the referees and editors had some hidden agenda and were rejecting articles on political grounds. But the editors and referees are members of the scientific community themselves, they are not appointed by politicians.
So, the whole scienctific community must then be politically biased. Otherwise you would get disputes amoung the editors of the journals and you would hear a lot of complaints by scientists about unfairly rejected articles, but this doesn't happen a lot. So, you are then led to assume that some giant conspiracy exists similar to the conspiracy theory that the Moon Landings were faked. Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
To recognize that political factions exist within the scientific community, as they do within any community, hardly requires an appeal to a conspiracy theory as you suggest. To assert with a straight face that such factions do not exist, however, requires a willful assumption of disbelief of significant proportions. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Your faith in the scientific community's ability to step away from bias is touching. When science touches on sensitive political/social topics, such as research into gender differences, IQ testing, homosexuality and genetics, the consensus is always influenced by the strictest adherence to sound scientific theorizing based only on a dispassionate, open-minded review of the best research results. Personalities, politics, corporation funding and prevalent social views never, ever influence any scientific consensus. (Except when they did in the past, perhaps, before previous consensuses were overthrown by the current consensuses. Then we find scientists not only drawing conclusions from bad information but sometimes drawing bad conclusions despite good information -- but that all stopped in the past. Such practices are never carried on in the present. Because scientists act perfectly rationally, now, you see.) Because when you put on the white lab coat, human nature experiences wonderful changes. Left-wing world views and atheism are naturally the result because, after all, they're only a kind of applied science. What a coincidence that science has proven that leftwing world views are correct and that God doesn't exist when those views are prevalent on university campuses. (Coming up after the break: Scientific research establishes proof that long hair and unshaven faces on men, a taste for Star Trek and Cheetohs are the most rational cultural preferences that a human being can have!) Of course, we have to reflect whatever the current scientific consensus is on an issue, as Sheffield Steel puts it so well below. And the major minority views, as WP:WEIGHT reminds us. But should we be careful about describing those minority views which, as the history of science shows, might one day become the consensus? Only if we approach politically contentious topics with an appropriate degree of watchful humility. When science books get to be outdated, is it solely because of new information and theories no one ever thought of before? Only if scientists as a group are perfect. Noroton (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look at historical cases un which with hidsight there was a lot of political bias, what you see is that the science was not driven by objectively vrifiable facts, that personal opinions/interpretations played an important role. In some scientific disciplines this is still a potential problem, take e.g. psychology. In cas of the "hard sciences" everything is unltimately based on the laws of physics. Personal opinions may influence the work of a particular scientist (e.g. by determing what kind of research he/she does), but you cannot get a situation where it influences a whole field.
So, while Freud's personal opinions may have influenced the field of psychology, the field of climate science will be influenced by the results of research which is based in observations and theoretical computations. Many climate sceptics don't have a background in physics, there are some economists, staticians and political scienctists who are skeptics (I think there are only two active climate scientists out of the few thousand who are sceptics"). They are used to the fact that political opinions can influence their own fields, and they mistakenly think that climate science is equally susceptible. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You may want to revisit List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and get back to us. There seem to be plenty of physics and natural sciences individuals included there. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, your faith is very touching, but my examples weren't from psychology. It was you who brought up cosmologists (hard science?) and their supposedly scientific disbelief in God. How rigorously one looks at certain observations and theoretical computations is not always a simple matter of applying the rational parts of one's brain, as the history of science shows. I'm arguing a pretty limited point, and it's not worth going on about: be humble. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Scientific consensus#Scientific consensus and the scientific minority are worth looking at -- not because they show that scientific consensus is meaningless, but because they reinforce the idea that not all minority viewpoints are necessarily wild-eyed kook theories. You can violate WP:NPOV in more than one direction. Noroton (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to think about, scientists and historians funded by the state (which can also mean any state supported university or school), being only human and with bills to pay and mouths to feed like most anyone else, may indeed tend to support the PoVs put forth by the state through its power hungry politicians and bureaucrats. This has nothing to do with left or right (or even green), or with scientists blowing off codswallop belief systems like ID, but truth be told, the outcome is even worse than most think. From what I've seen, some academics knowingly play the game, having given up long ago, while others have somehow swayed themselves into thinking everything's NPoV or that, at least, never mind the bullocks, they're still being somehow helpful to the world in spite of it all. Still others throw up their hands and go into the private sector, with many and sundry outcomes. Meanwhile as WP:V says so pithily, it's not about truth, but about sources, which is as it should be but we don't handle sourcing in some articles as openly and neutrally as we could, hence the wanton systemic bias in some high profile articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well put. Noroton (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec with Travis & Iblis) Beam, your second and third sentences contradict each other. And actually, your third sentence is being tested out right now at Project Vote where Bdell555 is essentially a Terminator robot searching out evidence and providing cogent arguments and just not stopping (at least as of about six hours ago when I had the chance to check). What I find in these situations is that some editors can be convinced, and some will never, ever, ever, under any circumstances change their minds no matter what the evidence. Wikipedia doesn't handle that situation well. At all. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I've got a bias against the National Review and GW deniers. The assertions brought up in that article are troubling at first glance. Here is one of the edits. The main trouble is that this Peiser's criticisms are not really published except on the internet. Plus, although he does present papers which doubt that global warming is anthropogenic (allegedly from Oreskes database), he only brings up 2, 1 from AAPG (petroleum geologists) and another from Futures. That's not compelling. II | (t - c) 00:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing Talk:Global_warming#Conflict_over_NPOV_in_the_introductory_paragraphs which has an on-going discussion of similar criticisms that HAVE been published, albeit in a peer reviewed journal that the IPCC backers take issue with. Still, it is peer reviewed and otherwise meets WP:V. Still their simply seek to exclude it from inclusion on procedural grounds. This is exactly the type of thing the Solomon piece is talking about.
On a separate point, is your admitted bias also transitive? Does the fact the CBS News also decided to print the same piece simply get dismissed in your mind because it started out in the National Review (actually it first started in the National Post? --GoRight (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Gee, an opinion piece in the National Review lambastes an online encyclopedia for accurately reporting a consensus view in the scientific community that if taken seriously threatens to disrupt the smooth sailing of well established American economic interests? You wouldn't say.PelleSmith (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Gee, so everybody else's bias is wrong but yours? Watchful humility. Watchful humility. Read your comment the way most outsiders would who knew nothing about some subject and heard one side charging bias and the other giving the response you just gave, oozing personal opinion from every pore while dismissing the critic. You just got down not to his level but below his level. Treat critics of Wikipedia (even of minor importance) with a respectful attitude or you've already lost the argument because a charge of bias is, when you think about it, a charge of arrogance. Don't indict yourself. And Grossman's argument, right or not, was actually that Wikipedia was inaccurately reporting someone's view. Noroton (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (((clarified my comment -- too tired, gotta go for now. Noroton (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC))))
There is nothing mysterious or secret about the National Review's political slant--as with other such magazines from the left and the right. I'm not sure how an observation based on common knowledge indicts me of anything. If you want to argue that scientific consensus somehow reflects a liberal political bias then you're very welcome to do so, but there are some rather obvious facts here which make this entire discussion uninteresting. 1) Scientific consensus is reflected in our encyclopedia's entries on global warming and 2) the National Review is an openly conservative news magazine aligned with a political position that still disputes the POV of said consensus. I'm not entirely sure what you think my bias is, but comprehending rudimentary social facts shouldn't be considered bias--unless of course it is the ability of others to engage in empirical observation that you take issue with in the first place. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The implication that National Review ran the piece not because they thought it might be accurate but primarily because global warming threatens "established American economic interests" is part of a leftwing meme about bad conservatives only mouthing what they say because they're fronts for economic interests. That's a bias. I remember a magazine cover story last year that defended the idea of global warming and helped cement my own view that it's a real problem. What magazine do you suppose ran that cover story? Noroton (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Same piece at NR...[9]...Lawrence Solomon, the editor who wrote it also wrote a book called The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud. Just saying.--MONGO 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple Grudgesocks.. er.. alternate accounts brought it up on the WMC/Geogre ArbCom case when it was first released. SirFozzie (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to really scramble their pinhead brains, tell them that Global Warming is just another aspect of Intelligent Design. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What, you mean it isn't? Gahhh! — CharlotteWebb 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If the published material from the reliable sources (i.e. the scientists' research papers) show a pronounced liberal bias, and we offer a faithful reflection of that, I think we've got it about right. To answer an earlier point, if Wikipedia was written in the 1920s, we would have written articles like Negro and eugenics very differently. We're here to document the prevailing opinion, not judge it, and certainly not to right wrongs. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for putting it like that, SheffieldSteel. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well put. In tone as well as wording, with the exception that you neglected to say that we're also here to document the major non-prevailing opinions, not judge them, and certainly not to right wrongs related to them, either. Which was a major part of Grossman's point. Noroton (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The pith is, some high profile articles do carry heavy systemic bias, which is most often not the simplistic "left-right" or "helpful-unhelpful" kind of bias so many folks go on about. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
And the pith helmet for us is to let the folks going on about it know that they're being listened to with a careful ear and an open mind. The same principles that we're supposed to be using in writing the articles need to be applied to criticism of our articles. Otherwise (a) we lose in public-relations terms, and (b) we may deserve to. Think of outside criticism as a continuation of the talk page discussion by other means. Of course we're entitled to our own POV, but critics (at least the prominent ones) of particular Wikipedia articles are entitled to both be heard with an open mind and for us to be seen to have an open mind. Doing that is in the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers, and as this thread shows, we don't do it well enough. Noroton (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that our position on "Intelligent Design" makes us firmly left is a bit like saying our position on Santa Clause not being real makes us firmly anti-Christian. Come on, just because we don't accept a fairy tale as reality does not mean we are taking a political position. Chillum 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pope stated to be Catholic[citation needed][edit]

Ironically, the Pope recently said we need to do more about global warming. Yes, the Pope is Catholic... as was National Review's founder, Mr. Buckley. Doubly ironic is that the Pope was speculated, at one point, to have been a Nazi... as was... oops, 'nuff sed. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pope's a Catholic?! Next you'll be telling me that bears are doing their business in the woods! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 13:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Only the live bears currently at large in the woods. We also have zoo dwellers, polar bears, dead bears and unborn bears, none of whom can fairly be accused of polluting the woods.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This message constitutes Official Notice that, as of 13:14, 18 July 2008 the above thread has reached its Godwin's Law juncture ("inflammatory rhetoric" subsection). As such, Baseball Bugs has forfieted any and all of his winnings from the argument, to be distributed among the other participants, individually and severally, by a designated agent of the Pope (which may include a nun with a thick ruler) and the estate of the late William F. Buckley Jr. (a soldier in a war against <cough! cough!> a certain regime run by National Socialists). At the discretion of any administrator, or, for that matter, any damn editor (ouch! Sorry, Sister), this thread may be closed, as per the optional sanctions of Godwin's Law. We now return you to your regularly scheduled drama. Noroton (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Jawohl! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That reminds me of this one: The Pope's secretary dashes into his office excitedly and says, "Jesus has returned and is on His way up to see us. What should we do?!" The Pope answers, "Well, at the very least... look busy." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Pope said we should worry about global warming? I thought God designed all this, shouldn't we just accept global warming? Chillum 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC) The preceding comment was meant as a joke.
Soitenly. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Just blame God for Global Warming and for high crude oil prices. ;) BTW it's just a tongue in cheek joke. Bidgee (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Something wrong with 24 (season 7)[edit]


There is something wrong with the page. This is not ordinary vandalism. Need urgent admin attention.—Chris! ct 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem (not to say it is not there). Can you describe it? -00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Page hasn't been edited in two days. Grandmasterka 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Template. WJBscribe fixed it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Look like it is fixed.—Chris! ct 00:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot related edits[edit]


As of member of the Slipknot project it has came to my attention that the same user has continually made disruptive edits to articles about the band. See [10], they have clearly ignored warnings on their talk page and have continued and was blocked temporarily for their actions. I'm not sure what the best resolution is but it's clear this user is out to either cause other users bother or does not understand the spirit of Wikipedia and it's policies. REZTER TALK ø 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't require admin intervention. Try engaging the user on their talk page. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Nobs[edit]

Resolved: Nothing here requires administrator intervention. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to bring to attention to the admins, the AfD for the article The Nobs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nobs. Yesterday, User:Tenacious D Fan nominated that article for deletion. There was no previous discussion on the Talk page about the state of the article nor was the article's original editor User:Yobbo14 given enough time to respond. With only one comment from another user, the AfD was closed within 2 hours by a non-admin User:TenPoundHammer and only 50 minutes of discussion, with the comment "content was merged" in the resultant article edit summary. This was not the case at the time of the redirect by User:TenPoundHammer. This is IMO an abuse of the AfD process and poor etiquette on behalf of the nominators involved. MegX (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the commenter in the AFD noted that the information that was included in The Nobs was already present in the target article, at Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970, which appears to have been the case. Another editor has added to it, from the looks of the history there, which is fine, but it would appear the basic information was already included. Nothing was lost by the merge/redirect. I probably would have left the AFD to run longer rather than closing it so quickly, to be honest, and I'll mention that to TPH, but beyond that I'm not sure there's admin attention required here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That was done so by Anger22 only after I mentioned this to him a few hours ago, not TPH. Had I not left a comment on Anger22's page I seriously doubt that information would have been added. MegX (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I still feel the deletion/modification of the original article is unfortunate - AND it should also be noted that significant information regarding the origin of "The Nobs" name was removed. I'm certainly not an everyday contributor to Wikipedia, but when I do contribute, I attempt to provide insightful and interesting information for the public at large. For those who participate more frequently (and are professional in this endeavor), it's easy to recognize the frustration involved when your work is mutilated. For those who tried to assist in salvaging the original article, I sincerely appreciate it. Yobbo14 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

False statements on RFA[edit]

Resolved: Yechiel (Shalom) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it permitted to make false statements about other users on RFA?

If yes, please ignore this. Yechiel (Shalom) 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My, what a fatuous appeal for help. You already replied at the RfA, which is the place to do so. However, this little stunt earned you another oppose.nevermind, you already failed, got RfA and RfAr confused. I'll be opposing at your next one, then. ThuranX (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX, I would suggest that you be a little more civil in you comments. Comments such as "However, this little stunt earned you another oppose.", " already failed", and "I'll be opposing at your next one, then." don't help the situation at all. nat.utoronto 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)`
Hey, i'm being honest. A guy upset about problems at an Arb report comes here instead of handling it there, as he's supposed to, and that Arb is in part about his RfAdmin? It's reasonable to say that someone who seeks to forum shop and circumvent procedure shouldn't be an admin. it's really simple like that, and hardly incivil to say it. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you talk to the editors in question? —Kurykh 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of this. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling off the dogs on this one. I blanked the RFC. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, ThuranX, I didn't think during the RFA to check for all the false statements made about me. The whole RFA was done in 12 hours. I have a right to be upset about it, and the community has a right not to care. Yechiel (Shalom) 06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no it doesn't. Those comments are really beyond the pale, and I think a 24 to 48 hour block wouldn't be out of the question. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User RFC[edit]

Having created an RFC about himself, is it in order for the OP to unilaterally withdraw and blank it? Mayalld (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs doesn't specifically address self-RFCs, but (N.B. I'm not an admin) I would say it's OK if there was no ongoing discussion, the participants don't object, he's taken on board any comments made, etc etc; business as usual really, except that the nominator and subject are the same person. :-) If users want it to remain open then the closure can be reversed, but I think it's OK to give some latitude to any user who's shown enough maturity to open an RFC on themselves in the first place! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's codified anywhere but simply; if someone else has created an RFC on you, you cannot withdraw it as it's someone else asking for third party input on you. If you create one on yourself to get feedback for your own purposes, then yes, you can withdraw it. Usually it should just be closed and archived - unless it is uncertified, or has some other good reason to be deleted or blanked (such as you wanting to vanish). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
He's vanishing now anyway (see WP:AN) so it's a moot point.
Very sad. That RFC/U was about the most ill-advised thing I've seen by an intelligent good faith editor in awhile. Ah well, such is life I suppose... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

More template transclusion vandalism[edit]

I'm terrible at finding this stuff, so could somebody fix Battle of Monte Cassino? That *is* template transclusion vandalism, right? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Tuvalu. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything. Have you purged the cache? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Have I whatted the what? Let me go through Firefox help and see if I can figure out what you're talking about. What I'm seeing is that Zodiac Killer nonsense. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The cache purge dealt with the issue at Monte Cassino, but not Tuvalu. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm so confused... where specifically is the vandalism? nat.utoronto 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to indef full protect all the pages in Category:Subtemplates of Template Rnd, one of them was the target, they are technical templates called by a lot of other templates to perform basic formatting functions, I've done some but need to get some sleep. MBisanz talk 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Would cascade-protecting Template:Rnd work? I don't know exactly how cascade-protection works, but I'm pretty sure that that would be an easy, on-click solution. J.delanoygabsadds 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, while you're at it, you may want to look at Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert. I'd imagine those are used quite a bit as well. J.delanoygabsadds 05:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)they were on Template:World_War_II and Template:Rnd/b. Both are reverted and protected now. I think I'll look around and see if I can find any more heavily used unprotected templates... J.delanoygabsadds 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Template:Commonwealth realms was also vandalized with the same thing. —Kurykh 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS should fix up the issue once the vandalism is gone. I think Cobi might want to add yet another heuristic to ClueBot for this as well... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, Calvin, I haven't understood a word you've said this entire thread. You seem to know what you're talking about, though, so I'll bow out and leave this to the more technically proficient among you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Update the server's cache, then clear your own cache. That's supposed to clear up any template-vandalism. If that doesn't work... then the vandalism is still there and I just can't see it for some reason. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Ryulong appears to have gone through and protected all or most of Template:Rnd's subpages. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
All that MBisanz hadn't yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually Calvin (and this is probably the only technical thing I know that you don't), if an edit would cause more than 500 changes to the software (expanding templates, re-coloring links, etc), it is tossed in the job queue. The queue may take several days to fully process, as is seen with re-categorization edits. Usually a whitespace edit to a page with a vandalized template will fix it. Also, this is why it is important to find and revert the vandalized template as quickly as possible, since the longer timeperiod between the vandal edit and the revert, the longer each article will be vandalized, as the job queue progresses. MBisanz talk 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
He's back again, see Special:Contributions/ Hut 8.5 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I blocked (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) & protected the targets. — Scientizzle 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Full protection, however, is counterproductive and interferes with the development of many templates. And in this case, simply knee-jerking reactionism. It only results in cutting off those who maintain and develop those templates for no gain what-so-ever. Semi-protection would be a much better alternative. --Farix (Talk) 12:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer protecting his own revert at Urban exploration[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.png Relevant discussion atWP:AN#Need some admin opinions
Resolved: Directly contacting the person you have a grievance with (and waiting for their response) should be the first step before going any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to bother you, but it seems to me that in protecting his own edit, seicer may have been contravening general Wikipedia practice. Can you advise me on what to do? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that posting here was the right thing to do, since, 31 minutes after protecting the article, seicer has now reverted to the previous version. Hopefully, this sort of thing won't happen again in future. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I gather that your complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality and costs, and you've got a point. You should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if you have not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  • [ec] The only text involved is a POV tag. The POV warrior appears, on the face of it, to be you; I'm with Bugs here, you need to provide sourced text not simply assert that the article is POV because it doesn't adequately reflect your POV, however right you may be. You seem to be extremely agitated on the talk page, to the point of suggesting some kind of conflict of interest, which I'm sure is not what you intend. I suggest you calm down. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I gather that the complaint about the article is that it doesn't say enough about illegality (trespassing) and costs (rescue efforts, etc.), and he's got a point. He should write up a prospective paragraph on the subject and post it on the talk page, if he has not already done so. I think it belongs in the "safety" section, because most of the folks doing this are probably kids who think they're immortal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
EC'd on a clarification above. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression from looking at the contribs, etc., is that Seicer's reversion had more to do with you contacting him on his talk page to express your concerns... which I note you didn't do until after you raised the ANI/I report. I'm glad everything worked out, but in the future you may find that merely contacting the person you have a grievance with will solve more problems than an AN/I report. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I unprotected it before Papa contacted me, and I was not made aware of this thread on ANI. I stepped out into a meeting and just now came back to see a comment (not about this thread, though) on my talk page. I'd be more than happy to discuss this, but POV-warring is not the way to go about it. I've left it protected for one week; if there have been no more substantial comments, I'm removing the tag. seicer | talk | contribs 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on Soviet Union hacked since July 15th - semi protected[edit]


The page was last edited on the 15th of July and has this bizarre message from "The Zodiac" in various characters (from that movie with that Jake Gyllenhall guy? The message appears in code, nonetheless.), and the page has been inverted in colour as to make it unreadable.

This shows up on IE6. Not sure about other browsers. The source didn't seem to show anything, so I dont know how it was inserted.

If I did this wrong, I apologize. This is the first time I've posted anything at all to Wikipedia.

Prometheus-BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus-bc (talkcontribs) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Linky: Soviet Union. I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything unusual; unless it was some cryllic characters that didn't render properly, everything looks OK. Where in the article did you see the odd text? I'm thinking it might have been a template that was vandalized, and the location would help narrow it down. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
vandalized template was Template:Redirect6. IP blocked as an open proxy. Thatcher 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I know where this guy hails from; I'm not saying who or where both per WP:DENY and to defend the person who gave me this info (if it came out he gave me this info, he'd be desysopped himself. All I will say is that he is not a Wikipedia editor). -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Can someone check the edit history of the article on Fog. I was adding to the article on Bristol International Airport, and wanted to check to the link I added to the sub-section there on Radiation fog. Suddenly, the whole screen goes dark and I have some form of hacker special message! I reverted this clear vandalism by going straight to the articles history page, and it seems an Anon IP was the last editor, so I reverted back to the last solid version of the article. I left at Vandal3 warning at the Anon IP's talk page, but am less positive now that it was that Anon. However, I note now that my reversion edit of the article does not stand in the articles history record. Help! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was just template vandalism on Template:Refimprovesect; User:(:Julien:) beat me to fixing it, bah! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to spread the word about what template vandalism is so that people can more easily identify and reverse it; I've noticed that the users reporting it frequently seem to not know what's happening. Maybe one or more of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly, Wikipedia:Wikizine, or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would be interested in reporting on it? I'm afraid I don't normally interact with any of those, so I'm not sure. --tiny plastic Grey Knight 16:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be concerned about WP:BEANS, but if there's consensus that a signpost article would be of value, I can write one, if and when. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the recent wave of fools doing template vandalism means that the cat is out of the bag, so BEANS isn't a major concern. I'm not an janitor myself though, so please contradict me if you think otherwise! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor do I have the mop, but I am opposed to publicizing it until we have a better way of fighting it. Right now, going through the list of all of the non-protected transcluded templates on a page to find the one with the vandalism is a real pain in the butt, and most users are not going to do it.
If there were a button that said, "View Recent Changes to pages transcluded on this page", then I would support publicizing it, because we can get widespread community help in fighting it. But until it's that easy, I think you'll end up recruiting more bandits than you will deputies.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point... That sounds like something that could be cooked up on the toolserver, doesn't it? Is there a specific page where we can put forward suggestions for new toolserver tools, or just the technical Village Pump? I'd try it myself, but I'm a bit busy at the minute and haven't even used the toolserver before. --tiny plastic Grey Knight 17:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Can AWB do: "View Recent Changes to pages transcluded on this page"? (I think not, but I thought I'd ask.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration To the United States- protected[edit]

Under general profile of illegal immigrants the first of the sentence of the child rapists. Other than not abiding by wiki's policy at neutrality it makes no sense can an editor please fix it and "illegal alien" is not appropriate just as "undocumented immigrant" is not appropriate. Change it back to illegal immigrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talkcontribs) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to make this request is by creating a section on the talk page and putting the template {{editprotect}} at the top of the section. In this case, I think you definitely have a point, so I would go ahead and make the editprotect request. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Jaysweet. Alternatively, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection which might get a quicker response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Gregg[edit]

Indiana Gregg has been protected and a section documenting an important and relevant event has, in my view, been improperly deleted. Could a few admins please review and undo the deletion? Thanks. cannona (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not wise, considering that the removal was nothing more than correcting a BLP issue, and is the subject of OTRS #2008071410044846. The article was also being heavily socked, so I am endorsing the protection and removal of the BLP issue. seicer | talk | contribs 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Given that the sources noted are the Pirate Bay itself (not an independent source in relation to a dispute with the Pirate Bay) and the subject's blog (ibid), I concur with the removal. Have you taken an opportunity to discuss the matter with Phil? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Pretty easy fix - find the reliable sources as requested, otherwise, between BLP and a high-level OTRS issue, you're completely out of luck. Shell babelfish 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have only a passing interest in this, and you folks have much more experience with such things than I, so I respect the above opinions. However, I am curious. What issues are in question? The PirateBay obviously posted her emails, because they are on their site and that link has been provided. Indiana Gregg has mentioned this fact on her blog, so it is clear that the emails were from her. Several blogs have posted about this issue, though no mainstream media sources have, most likely due to the relative obscurity of the artist. Finally, it is difficult to see how the section in question could be read as inflamitory or libel. What am I missing? Again, this is not so much about the article as it is about my trying to understand the reasoning.

Thanks. cannona (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much truth; it's quite likely that the information was accurate. However, it's about a living person (Ms. Gregg), and thus must be backed by independent, reliable sources. Given that there is an OTRS ticket on this matter, I'd say that goes double. If there ends up being mainstream media coverage, or even not-quite-mainstream coverage (a news website, or some such, for example), then I'd say you're fine. Failing that, though, we almost always go with the safer option, which is the removal of the material. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you for explaining. cannona (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Likely sock of User:Fredrick day[edit]

Resolved: Blocked Allemantando as a sock, evidence is more than sufficient. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this result. My questions for this board are as follows: 1) When the results of a checkuser are likely, should the account be blocked? And 2) what should we do about the various pointed AfD nominations that the checkuser confirmed likely indef block evading account nominated as I also asked here, here, here, and here? Also, please note these edit summaries: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not totally sure about the rest, but typically (or at least as far as I've encountered) if an AfD runs its course, even if the nom was made in bad-faith or by a banned user, the community is considered to have "spoken" on the subject and the outcome stands. Shell babelfish 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussions in question were hardly unanimous and thus, if the block evading account played a significant role in influencing the discussions, I think we should be concerned about that per precedent. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Absent some sort of clear and obvious fix, I think that WP:DRV is the place to go with these concerns. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to do multiple AfDs in one DRV or should each case be dealt with individually? As indicated above, I've contacted that closing admins and hope that they will agree to overturn or relist in some manner, but there is still the larger issue of whether or not a "likely" result means a block for the account in question as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Allie was doing good work, so let the AfDs run their course. "Likely" socks are not always socks, as was the case for instance with User:Coldmachine, who was later exonerated completely. Why does Abd care? I appreciate Allie's work 100% and if he is a blocked user (which he denies) I think he should be unblocked, as he was removing stuff from the wiki which I consider to have been of unprofessional/poor quality. Sticky Parkin 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Why not just take this to DRV? I would be pretty beefed if the outcome were voided on the basis of a "likely" return from a RFCU, given that the community did decide on these issues. Also, accusations of WP:POINT, Single purpose and sock aren't to be thrown around lightly. The phrase "confirmed likely" should jump out as a contradiction immediately. If and when he is banned or blocked, we can make statements like "sock". even then I'll contest accusations that nominations were made to prove a point or that they were somehow against policies and guidelines. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfDs, if started, and if there has been comment in them, should generally not be closed on the basis that a block evader started them. If there is no comment, they could be closed, reverted out, as can any content provided by a blocked user. -- or likewise if those who have commented consent. I'd say, though, that if an AfD has been filed, and there is no delete vote, but one or more keep votes, the AfD could be closed. If there is a Delete vote, I'd ask that voter if they want the AfD to stand, in which case they become, in effect, the nominator. As to closed AfD, unless the sock closed them, the remedy is DRV, that is very clear, and allegations that evidence had been distorted or improperly influenced (such as by tendentious debate by the sock in the AfD) would be considered there. Yes, it is possible, I'd argue, that if there is a single cause, there could be a single DRV for a series of AFDs, but I'd ask on the AfD talk page, with a specific example, so that people aren't just commenting in a vacuum.

Now, as to the user. Sticky Parkin elsewhere commented showing that he did not realize that checkuser came back likely' for Allemandtando being the blocked user Fredrick day. If he does not already know, I'd advise a little research into the history of that user, he was highly disruptive and, yes, he was an ardent and uncivil deletionist, and, yes, a fair number of people apparently didn't like that he was blocked. But he was blocked for harassment (the offense that he and now Sticky Parkin have either accused or implied has been mine) Why do I care? Because Fredrick day had essentially harassed and driven off the project one of the better writers we have had, has attempted much more than that, and because uncivil deletion is truly poisonous to the Wikipedia community. This is not about deletionism vs inclusionism, but deletion has a problem that inclusion does not have to such a degree: people get really angry when content they have spent days putting together is deleted in seconds. They may not know about Wikipedia sourcing policy and notability policy, and, if their content is going to be deleted, it should be done with scrupulous civility, not with contempt and incivility. It should be done with a sense of building community, not of excluding "fans" and "POV-pushers." It's crucial, it's important, and I hope that answers the question about why I care. Allemandtando has now been IDd as Fredrick day, which makes him eligible for immediate block. He's "retired," but I suspect that was an attempt to avoid checkuser, which could risk other assets of his. He's claimed to have other accounts, but they would probably only show up in checkuser if he slipped, which he occasionally does. Allemandtando should be blocked to seal this particular case. If people want to bring him back, there is process for that. Find an admin willing to unblock and take the heat, because, indeed, it would come out all that this user has done. He has not yet been banned, though, I'd say, it's probably about time.

Some will claim that the ID isn't certain. That's correct. Given the behavioral evidence, I put the odds against this not being Fredrick day at about a million to one, or, more accurately, not him or, say, a very close friend who thinks like him, writes like him, and shares the same ISP, living close to him. It doesn't make any difference. If, somehow, some injustice is done by blocking, it can be undone. This is not a clueless user who is going to go away in a huff if blocked. He knows the ropes. Remember, he was obviously -- and acknowledged being -- a "returning user," highly sophisticated on day one of registration. I can say this: if I did what he's done, I'd expect to be blocked, period. I think he expected to be blocked a month ago, when sock puppetry was first suspected -- not by me! -- when he also "retired," probably to avoid checkuser, just as Fredrick day pleaded "guilty" in his SSP case, probably to avoid checkuser.

Of course I know it has come back "likely", I have commented about it on one of the SSP pages. This is not conclusive and also it doesn't matter, to me his work is good, I hope he stays or comes back and deletes more stuff from the wiki that doesn't belong here IMHO. It's not WP:POINT to put up for AfD something you think is unencyclopedic or not helpful to the standards of the wiki. He said he was a returned user who's last account has a clean block log but he'd changed it due to security issues, which does not imply any wrongdoing. Sticky Parkin 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC) P.S- I have commented about Allie's edit summaries in the first ANI about him and said I thought they were uncivil. But that's only worth a short block at the very most. Sticky Parkin 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I must say, it's tiresome to keep seeing this defense against a charge that isn't being made. Nobody has claimed that wrongdoing was implied by being a returned user. However, it raises normal suspicion, when an experienced user pops up like that, and especially when the editor refuses to cooperate with private confirmation -- as then-called Killerofcruft did -- that the user is indeed a blocked returning user, and a quite high percentage of such, in my experience, turn out to be so. In the original AN/I report, where there was a lot of call for blocking him, I stated that I thought the evidence insufficient. But I hadn't noticed his registration timing, it was a piece of evidence (certainly not conclusive by itself) that he was following a Fredrick day pattern. Had I seen that at the time, I *might* have suggested checkuser then. And maybe not, it was still fairly thin. But over the next month, I had many opportunities to see this user's behavior, and it was the same incivility, the same contempt for fans and ordinary editors who don't understand sourcing requirements. And he was disruptive. In the early days of the account, he edit warred with two different administrators over AfDs, see my account of the AN/I report filed by one of the admins, User:Abd/MKR incident. (The first time was with User:Shereth over the AfD that he had apparently registered in order to vote in.) He was aggressive with regard to any effort to examine his behavior, and I finally RFCU'd him because he was demanding it and I realized that certain evidence might be expiring. What, does Sticky Parkin think it was just a lucky guess? Sure, "likely" isn't the same as "Confirmed," but it is still very unlikely to happen by accident. Fredrick day, unless he slipped up, would be unlikely to be Confirmed. Did we know, before the checkuser report, that Allemandtando was using the same ISP as Fredrick day, using the same IP range? (That is the most likely meaning of "likely.") I estimate the coincidence of IP at somewhere around 1 in 10,000 false positive. I'd put the behavioral evidence at 1 in 100 false positive, though certainly there is room for argument there. Thus my estimate of one chance in a million that Allemandtando isn't Fredrick day. Yet some editors, who think that he did "good work" -- I'm sure he did, there was some going on today, I'm pretty sure -- are clinging to ... what?
Today, if I read the records right, he was changing dates like July 16 to 16 July, in biographies. See my comment on it in Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd)#What "Likely" means for checkuser. How the mighty have fallen! --Abd (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This AN/I does not provide precedent to overturn deletion results where one user was previously banned. That was an AfD where multiple new SPA's were generated (on an offsite forum linked in the debate) and consensus was clearly imperiled. What we have here is one user who may or may not be a new account of a previously banned user. No where near the same thing. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's cause for an overturn exactly, but good reason to use discretion for a relist to have an debate without the prejudice from the nomination.DGG (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd) hasn't been closed to confirm, user has not been blocked, discussion of the AfDs is premature. --Abd (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 Likely that Fredrick day == Allemandtando was confirmed by User:Lar at checkuser. With the behavioral evidence, including the manner and timing of Allemandtando's "retirement," this really nails it, there is far more evidence now than is routinely necessary for block. Please, would an administrator block and close the SSP report appropriately. --Abd (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG has now blocked, and semi-protected Allemandtando talk. The block notice wasn't a paragon of civility, which is unfortunate, but.... it takes all kinds, and Allemandtando was definitely provocative. Please don't kick him when he's down. Move on now, nothing more to see here. I'd close this, but I'm involved, so .... --Abd (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

William Howard Taft[edit]

This page seems to be badly vandalized, in a way that I can't revert, but curiously the vandalized version is only visible when I am not logged in. (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. There've been no major changes in the article recently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Catch up, Will - we have a vandal who's been hitting templates. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In this instance (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log); logged out users see cached material much more than signed in. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks pretty vandalized to me; I think is right--it's only visible to people who aren't logged in. (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not specifically to do with being logged out, it's just that pages that transclude the vandalised template are cached for logged-out users (logged-in users don't see cached pages). To clear the cache for this particular article one goes to the URL I think we need a mechanism whereby an admin, when clearing vandalism from a widely transcluded template, can tell something automated (ideally server side) to invalidate the caches for all the pages that include that template. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Purging the template doesn't do that? --Random832 (contribs) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not related to the incident, but the "Administration and cabinet" table in that article looks really ugly! – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a few changes. There was some strange stuff in there. Feel free to make more... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good - some day I will understand Wikitable formatting. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Top of the shop[edit]

Please could folks look at the first section on this page, where Abtract is continuing to contest my indef block of him - I wouldn't want recent excitement to mean he misses a chance of review. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of possible IP socking and numerous statements in the past that alluded to cooperating with others and reforming, I am not inclined to support at this time. If the IP socks do prove that it is not Abtract, then sanctions against the editor may be more viable (i.e. topic ban, etc.). seicer | talk | contribs 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is an open WP:SSP report, as those effected are not inclined to wait on the backlog while Abtract remains indef'd. Would your review be any different without the consideration of the ip's involvement? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say how highly unfortunate and objectionable it is that an IP editor giving his genuine, good faith view—one similar to that given by many who are familiar with the RFC filed in relation to this user—is accused as a sock, with that accusation used to muddy the waters and support an indef block against another editor? I am at a loss to know what evidence besides my being an IP editor is being used here, and I deplore both the echo chamber effect whereby that accusation (first voiced by Collectonion, the original complainant) is perpetuated, and the implication that I should stay out of project space while continuing to contribute to building the encyclopedia, merely because I do not wish to register. I'm also deeply disappointed by LessHeard's endorsement of a conversation about me on Collectonion's page. (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Without crossing WP:BEANS, I'll just say I still approve of the block, especially with the current circumstances. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist unblock review request[edit]

(posting on behalf of User:Traditional unionist, who is currently temporarily blocked. He just wants the greater admin community to take another look at this. I am not involved and have no particular opinion either way - Alison 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))'

In early May I expanded the Remembrance Day Bombing article on my userspace and added this to the article on May 27th. A couple of weeks later Domer tagged the reference to Taylor's documentary as failed verification. On July 14th I requested an outside view on the article, which User:Malleus Fatuorumvery kindly agreed to do. I reviewed the article myself, noticed the tags, and removed them. Domer reverted this "per talk", and I reverted his edit as the citations were valid. Domer then left it alone.

The next day BigDunc became involved. He cited WP:WEASEL in removing the disputed text referenced to Taylor. Not being in possession of the documentary at that time, I found a partial reference and re added the information. Dunc reverted partially claiming that the source said it shook the IRA to it's core, and not that the event was a calamity. In fact the reverse is true (PDF). I still haven't verified the "shook the IRA to its core" quote. I probably will be able to, but I don't feel this is overly important to the issue at hand.

On July 16th, simultaneous to the dispute, Dunc posted on the article talk page: "I've been watching the documentary and I can't see how the previous sentence was properly sourced. Please provide exact quotes that support the wording, and a rough time they appear in the show please." I contend that the first part of this is untrue. I have since discovered that the documentary is available here. In the 53rd minute, Peter Taylor clearly states that the massacre was "an unparalleled calamity for the IRA". If Dunc had watched it as he claims, he couldn't possibly have missed that.

My reinsertion of referenced information that he removed here prompted him to report me for 3RR at 19:41, 14 mins after the 4rth revert as he claims. This was 23 hours after the first "revert", an edit removing unjustified tags added by Domer three weeks previously. The second revert was again to remove the unjustified tags. The third was 22 hours later to replace information removed citing an irrelevant policy, with a readily verifiable source, this time by BigDunc. Yet Dunc was clearly aware of the two edits the previous day. Since my block, Domer has removed a cited and attributed description, citing synthesis.

This is clearly evidence of tag team editing.1 2 3 edits by Domer. Then he disappears. But look who is around the corner to help out! It's Dunc! 1 2 3 edits by Dunc. One reaches the limit, the other wades in to help out and technically stay within the rules. I have complained about this sort of behaviour by these two in the past, pointed this out to the blocking admin, who ignored me.

I have raised concerns in the past about Dunc's COI issues. His inclination to take a source that verifies one of two statements, and pick not only the wrong one to believe is verified, but one that takes the unfavourable statement about the IRA away, is deeply worrying. It is also worrying that I was blocked on the basis of clear tag team editing with the intention of having me blocked, and despite requests that they do so, admins did not see that this had happened. Domer gets to three edits, then Dunc wades in. Does this strike anyone as odd?

I submit this with four questions:

  1. Exactly how disruptive was my editing, particularly in light of the behaviour of Dunc and Domer?
  2. How justified was my block?
  3. Does the community feel that Dunc and Domer's behaviour is acceptable?
  4. Why do these issues continue to occur after the Troubles arb com?

I have been blocked from editing my own userpage, as one admin feels this report can wait. I don't so I have emailed this to an Admin, who I thank in advance for posting it.

Traditional unionist

(Posted by - Alison 20:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi TU, IMO, I believe that (1) your edit was disruptive (2) you block was justified. However, Dunc and Domer's actions were clearly unacceptable. IMO, if anything, the actions that should have been taken were: (1) fully protect the article (2) or block all participants of this edit war as all parties are at fault. nat.utoronto 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I cant see the point of this thread except a disgruntled edit warrior not happy with another block for edit warring (6 in total). All I can see is an editor refusing to see that edit wars are disruptive period. Also his tired old mantra of ‘tag teams’, come on, an article that happens to come under WP:IR of which we are both members and I’m sure is on both of mine and Domer48 watchlist, so we both edit it wow what a coincidence. And where’s the assumption of good faith, this seems to be a concept alien to this editor. And as regard COI, I have declared that I HAVE NO COI on any article I edit. This can not be said for TU as he has a confirmed COI. And as to the reason for his block he reverted 4 times against policy that is the long and short of it. If two editors think that your edit is wrong perhaps it is time for some reflection that maybe you might be wrong instead of just edit warring. TU also seems to be admitting to synthesis on the article he says ‘In the 53rd minute, Peter Taylor clearly states that the massacre was "an unparalleled calamity for the IRA’ but the article said because of the extreme and provocative nature of the attack, and an "unparalleled calamity" that shook th