Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive459

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

odd archiving[edit]

[1] and [2] are two examples of NCMVocalist closing and removing to subpages two very large threads. As Kelly notes, Ncmvocalist is not an admin, nor an AN/I clerk. Is there a good reason for him to do this, esp. on threads he's involved in? ThuranX (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you've been around here for enough time, discussions that are getting long are moved to subpages - that's not archiving. And another thing you've got wrong - I'm only involved in one of those discussions - and that was closed from agreement of all involved. The other discussion I'm not involved in, but needs enough space for full discussion. Assuming good faith as always ThuranX...what can I say? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever assume good faith Thuranx? The pages were not archived, they were moved to their respected subpages to keep down on the length of ANI. The page is 256 KB long, with two subpages not included, and it renders slow for many users who have non-high-speed Internet connections. This has been ongoing for a while, to move discussions that have all but ended, to subpages so that it may reduce the page load. This requires no immediate administrator attention, or even any administrator attention, for that matter. seicer | talk | contribs 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I brought it up here after noting another editor's comments. ThuranX (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Ncm for doing this myself, even on a high speed connection it made for navigating this page rather tedious. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You're most welcome. :) It was beginning to irritate me too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In regards to thread moves to subpages, I think it would be best to at least ask for consensus before doing so. From what I've seen, moving threads to subpages basically kills all input from uninvolved parties. This means that the only people left talking are the most-partisan, resulting in zero-consenseus max-heat min-light conversations with no result. Stop moving to subpages without agreement. Ncmvocalist has no authority or consensus to do this type of work in any case, and should knock it off, particularly in threads in which he is involved. If it needs to be done, let an admin do it. Kelly hi! 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What I think is...both you and ThuranX [3] need to stop engaging in this unseemly conduct and move on. No, I don't think it's best we let this ANI page go from 375kb to 500kb asking for consensus to do a routine task: moving obviously long discussions to sub pages so that this ANI page remains readily accessible to the sane community. It has never been, nor ever will be a requirement either. I also think both of you have major issues if you think someone is involved in a discussion they haven't contributed to, or they become involved in a dispute just for offering third party uninvolved input. An admin has clearly stated that "this requires no immediate administrator attention, or even any administrator attention, for that matter." I fully agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Another admin clearly stated that it was rude of you to hide a thread just minutes after you closed it. [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, but as I wrote to the editor who filed the ANI, that was a mistake on my part - I should've put it in a sub-page and waited the necessary amount of time prior to archiving/hiding. The editor who filed the ANI on the other hand was perfectly willing for it to be archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
            • So when you described me and 2 others as edit-warring over it, what you meant was that one (an admin) had corrected your mistake, another editor had repeated your archiving, and that I had simply done exactly what that admin had done (in the absence at that time of any explanation or apology from you on this page for your mistake)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
              • I didn't realize the mistake until afterwards, amidst, what appeared to me to be an edit-war at the time. Other than that, you've summarized it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ncm, I see you are not currently an admin. Would you like to be one? Kelly hi! 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If only I knew. :) But, again, I'll emphasize...you need to move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • "Move on" from what? Please stop your attempted "clerking" on this page until you have some consensus to do so. The subpaging is counterproductive, in my opinion. Get some authority or consensus to do so before you continue it, please. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks, but no thanks. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Um, OK. That's one of the most singularly unhelpful responses I've ever received. In that case, I'll feel free to revert you in the absence of any other consensus. Kelly hi! 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on at WQA is becoming a big problem and rendering it ineffective as a step in dispute resolution; it looks like those who have "taken charge" of the page are turning dispute resolutions into disputes, it's reminiscent of what led to the downfall of WP:CSN, and some fresh eyes might be needed at WQA so that it can be used as was intended; also concerned about a lot of premature archiving here at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but could people please stop edit-warring on AN/I over the archival of threads? Enigma message 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to stop (I already have) but Ncmvocalist continues to disruptively subpage content from this page. Kelly hi! 21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It was subpaged with approval by User:Seicer, which is much more than I can say for any of your disruptive revert-warring. This is not about archiving threads - it's about keeping ANI accessible; something Kelly is seemingly intent on making unaccessible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I have no idea which thread you're referring to. If there was consensus to subpage a particular thread, please point me to the consensus to do so. If there is a general conensus to subpage threads once they reach a particular size, point me to that. If there is neither, then knock off the disruptive subpaging. It interferes with obtaining consensus by removing it from general public view. Kelly hi! 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • With all respect to Seicer, he has no special authority on this page, nor do you. I see no evidence that this page has become significantly more inaccessible lately. Please stop aggressively archiving/moving sections. If it's important to you find a consensus for a solution. RxS (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • With due respect to you then, both editors and admins (in their numbers) obviously disagree with you - it is taking too long to load. The claim that it is outside of public view is meritless - the section still exists pointing to the subpage it's been moved to. This has been a long established practice of dealing with ANI complaints when they get lengthy. It hasn't been archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Link to policy/guideline/consensus, please? (I've asked this already, why is it so hard?) Kelly hi! 21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, the last discussion I see shows no consensus supporting your position [5]. Did it develop elsewhere? And is there some evidence that load time has become a problem? RxS (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Several editors and sysops have agreed that it has become a lot slower since the size of this page has been as large as it has lately. That's why they came to thank me on my talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Because norms are not always (if at all) codified. You're welcome to check the archives and find each subpage that already exists if you like though. You refuse to stop with the unseemly conduct, so I think I'm done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Thanks. Kelly hi! 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                • That discussion was about standard archiving (leaving no link to the thread), not moving large threads to subpages. Consensus for this doesn't come from some policy or guideline, but (as it often does) from accepted practice. People have been moving many large ANI threads to subpages for the last 6-8 months (see [6] for the complete list, which I remember having only about six pages about six months ago). If the concern is getting fresh eyes on the discussion to promote resolution, you can post a new thread to ANI repeating the link and asking for fresh participants or spam links to the village pump, for example.--chaser - t 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • I would disagree with the above - there is no such consensus or standard practice. When it has happened, people have complained, and more importantly, discussion has died. Kelly hi! 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • Who has complained specifically about moving large threads to subpages?--chaser - t 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                      • Me, and the others complaining in this thread, should serve as a starting point. Kelly hi! 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly alone has violated 3RR in deliberate WP:POINT, and nothing's been done. If the entire community is going to sit back and let this group unreasonably and repeatedly continue to do so, then what's the point? I see no need to contribute here any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Group? I wasn't acting in concert with anyone, but if there's a group, let me know who my compadres are. Kelly hi! 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You've both violated 3rr, but the edit-war has stopped, so blocking shouldn't be necessary.--chaser - t 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the fact that the discussion whose archiving I reverted needed closing. I reverted because it is rude to deliberately hide the discussion four minutes after the discussion is closed. That is what is rude to the participants. The several people discussing on that thread deserve to at the very least see that the current discussion is closed and should be open somewhere else, not that it should be wiped off this noticeboard on an editor's whim. And before someone says "check the archives" or something similar to that garbage, tell me, how many people look at subpages compared to this board? —Kurykh 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that AN/I gets big, and sometimes it gets a bit too big, and something needs to be done about it, but moving big threads to subpages isn't the right way to go, IMHO. As has been pointed out above, moving threads to subpages takes away the attention, simply because the threads don't appear in anyone's watchlist anymore. Yes, sure, you can always watchlist the subpages, but first you got to find out that there is a subpage. Depending on how you use this page (Using your watchlist or the RSS feed, instead of visiting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] every now and then, for example), that's not likely to happen. It happened a couple of times to me now that I was wondering why no one was making any edits to a particular thread anymore, only to find out that it has been moved to a subpage a few hours or days ago. Additionally, I think Kelly made a pretty good point above as s/he pointed out that uninvolved parties are not as likely to comment on a subpage. Yes, it's just one extra click, but it's one extra click for every thread that was moved. --Conti| 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to deal with it. This page is basically impossible on dialup, and it's not as though we can predict what threads will be huge when they're started.--chaser - t 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Horologium has archived it, I've moved the thread to the bottom of this page (where people go to look for new threads), and I've also spammed WP:VPM and WP:AN to get more eyes on this topic.--chaser - t 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am much happier with moving large thread for clarity, but we do need to work out a better way of making them still evident. Perhaps the AN/I main page could quite specifically carry a list of currently open subpages, right at the top? DGG (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that something should be done, and I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, either. Maybe we need to rethink how AN/I works in general. Maybe we should use subpages for every thread (That way people will get used to it and regularly check out what they're interested in. Then again, uninvolved people will still be less likely to appear in a given thread). Moving threads about unresolved subpages to the bottom of this page is a good idea, tho. Maybe we could add a short (and neutral!) summary of the subpages to the corresponding threads, too? Often enough, it's not clear at all what a thread/subpage is about until you look at it. A list of current subpages sounds like a good idea, too. --Conti| 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, because even on a cable modem (pulling down 15 MBps here), ANI chugs on FF3. That's beyond reasonable, and it's impossible for many on dialup or slower connections to even view this page with any reasonable expectations. ANI needs to be restructured, or at least have a TOC bar for threads that are on subpages. But let me repeat: edit warring over the subpages is never acceptable, and those that continue it will be blocked as such. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll take an apology for those 'You never AGF' comments now. Clearly I'm not the only person interested in this matter, and since I did it AFTER seeing another person comment on it, I more than AGF'ed. I never edit warred about it, I asked. ASKED. SO you can both, right here, post some nice simple retractions. thank you in advance. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If there was some way to put all discussion on subpages and have just the first post from each discussion show up on AN/I to give people an idea of what the thread is about it might help. What this thread boils down to though is that regardless of ncmvocalist's insistence that he has consensus to behave as he does, the constant threads and people taking issue with what he does would indicate he doesn't, and continuing the behaviour will become a point of disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on Ncmvocalist's behavior. There's no consensus, as evidenced by the fact that this keeps coming up, both here and at his talk page. How many ANI threads about him and his premature archiving, and how many times will he ignore requests from other editors (calling them "trolls" and saying their comments had "0% weight") do we have to go through? Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to move this thread to a subpage, it's getting awfully long in my opinion. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're being sarcastic, it isn't really helping the discussion. If you're being serious, that also isn't helping the discussion. This keeps coming up because we have an editor who believes he has some sort of mandate for his behaviour, when there clearly isn't one. When anyone interferes with what he believes to be his mandate, edit warring ensues (remember it takes 2 sides to edit war), and he uses the occasional uncivil and rude comment to refer to those who disagree with him and dismisses them out of hand.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think he wasn't being sarcastic or serious, he was just cracking a joke. :-) Which I suppose doesn't help the discussion either, but it may help with people's blood pressure! bah, that should be a bluelink! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus; that's why the vigorous discussion above exists. I don't really know what the solution is either: on the one hand, the page definitely suffers from excessive load time, but on the other hand, moving to subpages kills discussions on important issues, for the very reason that they are attracting a lot of attention and therefore generating a lot of text. Personally, I think the load time is a price worth paying for having active discussions, although I wish there was something that could be done to solve both problems. Everyking (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems rather obvious - as DGG proposed above, a box showing currently active subpages would probably be the best route, though I personally don't quite get why a decrease in size from 500KB to 375KB helps anyone at all. The snarky behavior of NMC is rather disquieting, as is the hilarious citation of AGF by seicer above. --Badger Drink (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm just this guy, but personally I liked User:Conti's passing idea of making subpages standard for threads; you could have the main AN/I page just listing a very quick summary (probably the original post would suffice?) and a link to the full discussion, so as to not discourage "uninvolved comments" too much. I also heard a rumour about having mw:Extension:LiquidThreads on Wikipedia at some point; I'm not up on how that works, but would it help any? --tiny plastic Grey Knight 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NO way no how with the thread subpages - this has been disucssed on the talk page and the consensus was firmly against it. One idea I personally Liked was 5 seperate ANI pages with a single splash page - the new thread gets posted to the splash page, a bot moves it to the least full of the subpages and leaves a note directing unfamiliar users to where it has been moved. The note is removed 24 hours later. That leaves 5 (maybe 6 if you include the splash page) pages to watch - not the thousands that would end up accumulating if you were watching a thread per subpage. It would leave the watchlist nbumping that currently occurs in place (people watch for threads of interest in their watchlist) and would mean the continued exposure to the majority of the community, ntot the subset who are interested enough to actually go to a new page to scan the topic. ViridaeTalk 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we bring this up at the Village Pump instead for further comments? This would be an ideal solution if we could have a bot relocate dead or older threads to other pages before full archive. seicer | talk | contribs 12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea to have a focused discussion and straw poll of some sorts to determine if non-bot archiving should continue. –xeno (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(in case this section gets archived before I learn where the poll is...) I'll go on record here and now as being opposed to Ncmvocalist's premature archiving. (as well as premature and unwarranted "collapseboxing", refactoring to other pages, and other moves that serve to stifle and confuse discussion) Ncmvocalist has been asked not to do this several times now. There is no consensus for it. I find Ncmvocalist's responses to be somewhat condescending and not very collegial, as well. Ncmvocalist needs to internalise that not everyone approves of his approach. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the merits in terms of content, I would regard a substantial change in custom and practice here of being worthy of discussion on the talk page before applying such changes, remembering that WP:BOLD does not apply outside Article space. However, I have some sympathy for readers of this page, and others, who have to load the whole page before they can catch up on topics of interest to them. In one sense, I can understand a page consisting solely of transcluded other pages, such as we have in many other places here; however, I frequently scan this page and find information and opinion of interest, which may not be the case with a transclusion system. The existing system isn't perfect, but then, neither is any other. Let it be. --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, you do a good job. Everyone knows the subpage topics are the best, and the links usually persist for many days. Jusst put them at the top of this page in a little list, so people can look at them. Then remove them when the drama expires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.231.39 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 1 August 2008

AN/I clerk? Is there such a thing? I see that mentioned and think it would be a wonderful idea to formalize such a role. Of course I'm not an admin so it's not my call...Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
An AN/I clerk satrapy seems like a bad idea to me. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Outings/Personal Attacks by two editors[edit]

I originally posted this on WP:AIV, but I realised that was the wrong forum after realising this was a more complicated situation, and I was advised to bring it here by Redvers. My report on AIV was as follows:

This seems to be an ongoing dispute with Hillman (talk · contribs), who is also outing this user on the same page. This is probably therefore the wrong forum, but I don't know how to deal with this. Verbal chat 12:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This also spilled over onto Talk:Asymmetry. Apparently CH has now stopped editing, so I have redacted his comments to remove the outings, but I have no idea how this, and the "anon" IP, should be dealt with properly, so I've brought it here. Thanks. Verbal chat 12:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


This is a lie. I did not repeat vandalism, I reposted a reply without a personal attack. In other words, I removed PA sentence and have reposted a valid reply. So one warning by Verbal was perfectly enough to me. Verbal, please stop removing valid replies[7][8] from Article Talk pages. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the time stamp of when this was reported. Verbal chat 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Note also a history of article edits. It is quote obvious. [9][10] 216.80.119.92 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

see here for the background. Basically, what is going on here is that Lazar Kovacevic is abusing wikipedia to promote his fringe science theories. Chris Hillman, a mathematical physicist and ex-Wikipedia editor, then comes here and objects to that. Kovacevic then defends himself against Hillman by arguing that Hillman has violated some wiki rules.

Since Wikipedia's primary goal is to produce a reliable encyclopedia and the rules are merely a tool to achieve this goal, one should always ignore a rule if upholding that rule would potentially cause damage to articles. In this case, we can ignore the issue of whether, according to the wiki rules, Lazar Kovacevic has the right to remain anonymous. What matters is that the editors of all the articles that Kovacevic is involved in are warned. They don't all contain pseudoscience, but it is a good thing that editors are on their guards, because theiy may not be aware of the other articles written by Kovacevic. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite impressive rationalization for harassment. Could you Count Iblis tell us who you are in real life, and what academic papers did you published (as I see you are physicist and have published in academic journals), just so that other Wikipeida editors would be aware of any potential COI, and hidden agendas you might have. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You've got the logic reversed. Suppose someone in real life knows about my work and he sees that many wiki articles have appeared about my work. If my work is considered to be very fringe, then it would be a good thing if that person would notify the wiki community about what is going on. Also, if some wiki editor notices that some other editor is writing new wiki artices on fringe topics, bsed on articles authored by the same people, then that is cause for concern as well. Count Iblis (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the personal attack against Hillman the anon created at Talk:Intermittency. For what it's worth, IMHO, whether the editors Hillman has a dispute with are the real-life authors of the pseudoscientific papers is irrelevant, as long as it's left clear that the editors represent the authors' views. (It's difficult to write without repeating the "outing", but it's not really necessary.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It probably should also be pointed out that one of the editors being "outed" is using his real name. The only "outing" being done is matching User:FirstName LastName to the author FirstName MI. LastName, which seems rather difficult to report as being against Wikipedia rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed something. Which exact sentence was a personal attack. I will remove it, but would like to leave the other part of reply there without being completely censored. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I misspoke slightly. It's part personal attack, part comment on the off-Wiki activity of a (former) Wikipedian as relevance to his motives here, and entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. (Oh, yes, SA's conduct on the "Process" AfD, although not exemplarly, is not at all as you described, so it's an attack on him, as well.) Your comments that the "Bios" and "Process" articles may have met the notability criteria at the time (which, FWIW, I doubt) are also irrelevant to the question of whether the other two articles contaminated with the pseudoscience of Bios theory should be decontaminated. (See, entirely commenting on the articles and edits. No personalities involved.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


O.K. First, articles contaminated with the pseudoscience of Bios theory is quite ridiculous, if you pay close attention to articles edit histories (apart from 3 edits by Sabelli, which BTW he didn't even try to hide -- so no hidden agenda there).
Second, so the part about User:CH posting real names in unrelated article, and references to his history of accusing people publicly is somehow not relevant to his comment and accusations? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In particular: :CH (talk - contributions), [11], seems to take upon supporters of ideas he disagrees with quite emotionally, and is actually going after people accusing them on public websites [12][13][14]. Also, visitors should note that User:Hillman violated one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia -- one that prohibits harassment, which this posting of real life names, on a totally irrelevant page, represents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
About Hillman questioning the credentials of people he disagrees with, he does that in a quite civilized way. Compare what Hillman wrote to Osher Doctorov, to what Uncle Al writes to him here. :) Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Much as I hate to support our anon semi-vandal, does this strike anyone else as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
However, as for it being unrelated, that's a matter of opinion. If (and I haven't checked through the edit logs in detail) the editors whom Hillman believes are the real pseudoscientists involved added "relevant" data about the pseudoscience to asymmetry, it should be noted, if only to note that they were actively editing the deleted articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't quite understand the relevance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, you do seem to agree that there is a place for my opinion on those talk pages, and that I should not be censored completely. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet disruption at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 Sicani[edit]

Resolved: IP User:78.149.145.54 blocked for 2 weeks, and the mediation case got semi-protected to 2nd September. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Could an administrator please block the IPs causing disruption at this mediation page and other pages? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco shows that they are sock puppets.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where the CU case says he's a sock. But he is trolling and being disruptive, so I blocked him for two weeks. RlevseTalk 10:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's near the bottom, where Thatcher says all the the Opal Telecom (now known as TalkTalk) IPs - with IPs beginning in 78, 84 and 89- are socks, in a case relating to Maltese-related articles such as Sicani.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There are also other socks beginning in 78 and 89 (not online right now) that have been disrupting the mediation case.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Lots of disruption and block evasion. Most of the socks are blocked and the IPs softblocked now, and given the history of block evasion I have semiprotected the mediation cabal case page for a month, though if anyone wants to undo that they are free to do so. I don't think there's much likelihood of new and unregistered users actually helping in that case right now, and pretty good evidence that the opposite is likely. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish League Football[edit]

Resolved: I've done the necessary pagemoves and discussed the matter with both editors. Mooretwin was making good-faith edits here - Alison 17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A new user who seems to be learning the ropes seems t have had some trouble with the IFA pages, This edit on my talk page highlights the problem. I'm not great follower of IFA football but a simple google search verifies that Mooretwin's claim is indeed accurate. I tried to be bold and move the pages but it seems the move over redirect is only available to admins now (that new rule seems to me, like another horse designed by a committee on wikipedia). Could an admin do the redirects please? I think that the unavailability of the move function seems to have caused Mooretwin's C&P move, and frankly to a new user unfamiliar with the ins and outs of policy, who could blame him?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing on Talk:Zakir Naik and general incivility from Agnistus[edit]

There's been a lot of heated editing on Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which surrounds the insertion of a large amount of disputed content by Agnistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

There's also been a lot of off-topic comments posted on Talk:Zakir Naik about Islam and Muslims in general (See: Talk:Zakir_Naik#Regarding_Islam and [15]). Every time I attempt to remove these needless comments,[16] they are resisted.[17][18] This was raised on AN/I quite recently among a number of other complaints by User:Elazeez. At that time, I had opted to try and step in to resolve the issue of soapboxing, personal comments, and assumptions of bad faith re: accusations of vandalism and censorship in a content dispute.

But along with the soapboxing, Agnistus continues with the incivility and the bad faith. He was previously blocked for incivility and personal attacks on this same page following a discussion on AN/I. He momentarily changed for the better, but has since relapsed back into his old ways.[19][20][21][22][23][24] It has now reached a point where I feel intervention is necessary. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • There has been mass removal of sourced content that affected not only the readability, but the actual information available in the article. The above user has cited (incorrectly, in my view) WP:UNDUE repeatedly, even though the sourced information was regarding the Islamic beliefs of a Muslim scholar. He's removed talkpage comments of another user (Agnistus, if memory serves), and insisted that his version was preferable, continually reverting out the content, without anything resembling a consensus to remove it. I'm tired of dealing with the issue, so this will be my only reply here, but it's the ones who are removing the content who are the problem, not the ones trying to keep it in the article. S. Dean Jameson 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • One more thing: this is a content dispute, and doesn't really belong here, except for the problem with the OP of this thread removing other people's talkpage comments. S. Dean Jameson 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I haven't raised the content dispute here, as we are undergoing dispute resolution for that. I have raised the issue of soapboxing which is being continually restored, as well as the issue of incivility and bad faith. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • S._Dean_Jameson: I agree the content dispute doesn't belong here (nor is Itaqallah trying to bring it up here). But are you prepared to tolerate statements like "On the contrary, Muhammed was a mass-murderer" by Agnistus? Will we accuse Jews of slaughtering Christian children next? Such statements do not belong in wikipedia. People making statements of hate have previously been blocked.Bless sins (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that mass copying talk page discussions into article talk pages is WP:SOAPboxing and should be reverted. (Even more so if the other party asked for the discussion not to be distributed.) Also, discussions should focus on the article's topic.
However, please do not engage in the pot calling the kettle black. If Agnistus had some "niceties" to say about Islam (and the above quote actually is a valid opinion given the facts) note that his opponent in this discussion was just as bad. Str1977 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had notified both parties that this sort of discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But it isn't Elazeez who is advocating it remain on the talk page, nor is he the one reinserting it. ITAQALLAH 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. That was your point. However, BS raised another point (that Agnistus was mean on Muhammad) and I reacted to that (that Agnistus' opponent was just as mean on others on a much flimsier basis). Str1977 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to recall having made an offence (the 'first move', if you may) that invited an Islamophobic comment like the one above from Agnistus. On the contrary, we find Agnistus (initiating the argument by) inserting a completely irrelevant (as far as the content-dispute on Zakir Naik is concerned) SlashDot article link [25] and accusing the Muslim editors working on Zakir Naik's article, of censoring WP. Isn't that a racist point, (clearly) intended to serve as a disruptive red-herring in the content-dispute resolution for Naik's article? In reaction, I made a statement [26] saying "(See Qur'an 6:108 which beckons muslims to respect other communities)" subtly hinting at and requesting Agnistus to put a lid to this kind of misdemeanor (and that I wouldn't do such a thing just to make a point), but it now seems he somehow got (further?) irked and carried away. What now can one do of a man who makes about 50 consecutive edits to a talk-page per day with extremely Islamophobic summary statements in some [27]?. By the way Str1977, your personal point of view in the bracketed text above i.e. "(and the above quote actually is a valid opinion given the facts}", didn't sound as neutral as one might have expected, especially when it came from an user as established as yourself. Please do introspect as to what you personally consider to be 'facts' and where you've derived them from. (A few black sheep do not render the entire flock dark, neither do a few white ones make another any admirable). I don't wish to debate your point of view over here, right now I'm just voicing my opinion that the conclusion you've jumped at i.e. "Agnistus' opponent was just as mean on others on a much flimsier basis", should have been quite the contrary because mine was a retaliatory move (not to forget, your choice of the adjective flimsier) and not an offensive one. Regarding the red-herring of a discussion about Islam on Zakir Naik's page, I say I don't (and didn't ever) want it on that page neither am I in favor of continuing it any further with Agnistus, so please do away with it coz it doesn't belong to WP. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Agustinus’ work is constantly reverted for being WP:POINT; WP:RS,WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:OR. Or for “editing without consensus”. I can imagine that his patience and his temper are tested heavily, which shows in his comments on talk-pages. Anyway, I think we can solve a lot of problems if more users look at the Zakir Naik- article. When EVERONE says that Itaqallah is right there, or that EVERONE says that Agustinus is right, then we can save a lot anger.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I may have a look. From a first glance I can say that there is too much blanket reverting without regard to inbetween changes. Str1977 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony Snow article[edit]

Resolved

In the first paragraph of the Tony Snow entry there is a line about him being the cheif speech/lie-writer for GHWBush. Surely that is not an official title huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.131.226 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Already reverted. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A citation would be needed to demonstrate that he was the chief lie-writer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yuz baint gans foind nay sight-asian sez ee bay cheif norfink, mi anzum! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aoso0ck[edit]

Aoso0ck (talk · contribs) is removing references and text from articles such as Licensure‎ and General practitioner‎. I've already blocked them for edit warring, and they seem to have moved back to 2RR, but have continued to edit without any discussion. Looking at the edits, I'm not sure if this is simply vandalism. What do people think is the best course of action? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I came to his talkpage to issue a warning regarding their actions on Parliament; I think WP:AGF is reaching an end here as they've now graduated to inserting misinformation. ("Provinces" of Britain?) – iridescent 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. He declines to talk or engage in any meaningful dialogue but just keeps doing weird edits. I think the time for another block is fast apporoaching. He has been asked by several folks to stop but he just carries on. 3 day block? Peter morrell 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully they will explain what they are thinking, but if they just carry on making controversial edits without discussion I don't think we have much option. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of August 1, 2008[edit]

This article on the Main Page today is being vandalized by various anons.

The instructions on how to safely view an eclipse are being screwed up into nonsense. This is very dangerous because a reader might believe the nonsense and damage their eyes.

I think this should be protected from anon editors till the eclipse is over. Wanderer57 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked wikipedia is not an instruction manual. If we're providing instructions for readers to perform a task, they should be removed entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The problem is we provide fairly detailed notes about where and when the eclipse can be seen. This suggests that 'people should see it'. If we totally ignore the question of how to see it safety, I think this is an error of omission. Wanderer57 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess it is 'academic' now. The event is nearly over. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That is why external links were invented. It is a place to put relevant information that might not otherwise belong in the article. An official page from a science organization or something with instructions on viewing the eclipse can be listed there, and people would be unable to tamper with it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree, adamantly, that the entire section "Safely viewing ... " violates WP:NOTand should be deleted post-haste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The edits seem to be slowing now, but let's not take a cavalier attitude, eh? If you see a report on AN/I and think it's no big deal, try not to reply. A soft protect would have been warranted for an ongoing event. We guarantee constant diligence to our articles, not perfection, but that means whipping out the protect button sometimes. Geogre (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There's so much hand-wringing here over fears that somebody might file a copyright violation suit against wikipedia over a postage-stamp sized image. A more realistic possibility is a suit saying "wikipedia said to do such-and-such and my child was blinded". That kind of publicity wikipedia does not need. There should be no hesitation in acting to prevent such a possibility. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and I was trying to admonish the initial responders. As for the violation of NOT, it's not really the issue. There are vast numbers of little how-to's running about our articles, and they should all be gone, but the outrage is the bad editing -- someone doing a bad edit by putting in a good how-to or doing a bad edit by putting in a bad how-to -- and so a soft protect would have been warranted. Saying, "tough luck, kid" is improper. Geogre (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
They should be removed on sight. Bad editing over a section that isn't there is less of an issue over someone vandalizing content that should be there. These vandals were obviously getting a kick out of potentially giving readers bad instructions, that doesn't happen if policy is followed and the instructions are removed. The most they can do if policy is followed is remove the link to the 3rd party instructions--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Would it be contrary to policy for the article to warn readers that for safety reasons they should not try to observe an eclipse? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As a flat out warning yes. As a more descriptive and encyclopedic description of what happens when you view an eclipse, no. You can describe the medical ramifications of what happens to the retina when you look at an eclipse, but you shouldn't just say "Don't stare at an eclipse". We shouldn't be telling the reader what to do ever.--Crossmr (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That, too, would be a how-to. It's enough, if really desired, to say, "Many authorities offer tips on eclipse viewing" and then having no link. Getting link substitution/vandalism is just as bad as anything else. A soft protect would have been called for in the case of an ongoing event and malicious IP editors. Geogre (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia needs standards and policies. I think however that in this instance the policy creates a bed result. Here is why.
If the eclipse article was "merely" an encyclopedia article, the case would be somewhat different. But this article was referred to on the Main Page as an 'in the news' item. Through this means, it is being brought to the attention of many people, some of whom may know nothing about eclipses. They are told the eclipse "is visible". If they went to the article, they were told it "will be visible" and where and when it will be visible. IMO, this is suggesting that people look at it.
I think it is wrong to do this without including at least a warning. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threats[edit]

It's a bit unclear due to the editor's imprecise English, but do these edits [28] [29] [30] [31] constitute legal threats by User Dralansun? Edward321 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's sort of an implied threat, but I don't see much there, really. Why don't you ask him? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Kinda, but not really. I think discussion is in order here. Try talking with the editor. KnightLago (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. I've left a note on the user's talk page, requesting clarififcation. [32] Edward321 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Phone numbers posted to AfD[edit]

Resolved: non-public information redacted & oversighted - Alison 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dianablee2 (talk · contribs) posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Bruno several phone numbers of people claimed to be able to attest to the notability of the subject. The irrelevance was pointed out to the user, but I wonder if we really want these numbers showing up in searches. One of them appears to belong to someone else (right field but wrong person) and one of them does not have a web presence except that page. I removed those since there is no indication that those people want their phone number posted here. A third is a toll free number to an acupuncture organization, and the last is publicly connected to the person's professional identity. Do these need to be oversighted or courtesy-blanked? Currently the AfD is not on the first page of Ghits for the subject's name, though the article is. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted at the least. People's phone numbers are personal information and as such should be removed completely from the history. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done - Alison 06:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that nobody has bothered to notify the User that their action of posting phone numbers is inappropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 19:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New harass accounts[edit]

I will ask for ban of new harass accounts (suspected puppets of banned user:PaxEquilibrium. This are: user:TweetyPaxicus, user:PaxDetevan , user:PaxPaximus, user:Equpaxbrilium. Before discovery that user:PravdaRuss (and his puppets) are in reality puppets of user:PaxEquilibrium they have been banned like harass accounts (see blocking history of PravdaRuss)--Rjecina (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks likely to me, I blocked the four accounts. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
He has created 2 new accounts: user:CreativePower and user:Decensi. Because of this attacks I have asked for semi-protection of articles in question --Rjecina (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Last two blocked and all tagged. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Pupilaksa, User:Istrianvictimus , User:Kostunjica, User:Godshepard. This are new puppets of banned user:PaxEquilibrium. For confirmation of this problem see [33]. For checkuser comments about earlier today puppets of this banned user see this--Rjecina (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback misuse from McJeff[edit]

Resolved: Rollbacker bit flipped referenced in the user rights logs. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


I originally posted this on Peter Symonds [[34]] talk page (the original admin who removed McJeff's rollback), but he is probably too busy to deal with this messiness and hasn't responded, so I've decided to post this here and make note on his page. On July 28, McJeff's rollback was removed for misuse in examples such as [35] [36] [37] [38] and [39]. McJeff had the tool reinstated a day later after he expressed that he understood how rollback should be used only in blatant cases of vandalism. Then, McJeff started misusing rollback again. I don't believe that he grasps how it should be properly used only in cases of blatant vandalism, based on these diffs and his curious interpretation of 'blatant vandalism': [[40]] [[41]]. Furthermore, he continues to warn users for vandalism when it is not actually vandalism such as [[42]] and [[43]], which are in reference to editors trying to add the 'controversy' section back to the Tucker Max article, which is currently in RfC in regards to whether the section should be there. since the controversy section is in RfC, i don't think it's appropriate to warn users of 'vandalism' for adding the section, as it's properly sourced and NPOV. An editor who's using rollback should know what vandalism actually is. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a glance alone is needed to see him abusing Rollback in content disputes. removal of tool should be substantial, maybe 6 months? ThuranX (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just remove it permanently - there are other ways of achieving a revert. ViridaeTalk 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies to both McJeff and Theserialcomma for not responding sooner - I was aware of the thread, but it was mid-discussion when I last checked it. Rollback has been removed from McJeff's account once again. Despite agreeing not to use it content disputes on Tucker Max, he has done, and rolled back the same edits I'd asked him not to use rollback for. I will post a full explanation of my actions on his talk page later on. For reference, here is the thread on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#recurring_rollback_misuse. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What? This is - pardon the language - fucking pathetic. Once again, the tenditious and obnoxious (theserialcomma) are manipulating the rules at the expense of those that are honestly trying to improve Wikipedia (me). I explained very clearly on PeterSymond's page why my use of rollback was completely justified, and the fact that Theserialcomma has been engaged in long term harassment against me. I submit that my rollback rights be reinstated immediately and Theserialcomma be punished for the personal annoyance he is putting me through. McJeff (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what offenses the other party/s may committed, your use of rollback is inappropriate. It's for blatant vandalism, not wishy washy content disputes or edit wars. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There was one inappropriate use. ONE. And I apologized for that one and agreed not to use it in that fashion ever again. Adding a section to an article that is in blatant violation of WP:BLP and against consensus is definitely blatant vandalism. Do not listen to what Theserialcomma says about there is "no consensus" - the consensus is unanimously against him, and he continues to file RfC's every time he doesn't get his way. McJeff (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Good faith additions/removals or even breaching of NPOV are not vandalism any way you slice it. A rollbacker should be able to identify the subtleties of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Difs 128-131 suggest you do not have that insight yet. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Bill.matthews is not a good faith account - he is a revert account with a few AfD-related contributions, as you can see from his contribution history. I can tell the difference between good faith addition/removal, and diff 128 was not good faith. Diff 129 was an editor who has been repeatedly warned and had several short-term blocks for his without-consensus changing of professional wrestling movesets. Yes, those were both appropriate uses of Rollback. McJeff (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is the topic on PeterSymonds' talk page. Please note the fact that I debunked every single one of Theserialcomma's accusations against me and proved he was disrupting wikipedia to push his points of view. Again, the fact that I'm being disciplined and he is not is completely disgusting. McJeff (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not vandalism. That's a content dispute. seicer | talk | contribs 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I just got done explaining exactly why it was vandalism. McJeff (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(And again) That's not vandalism. That's a content dispute. I can't be more clear than that, and others have reiterated the same statement. Your rollback privileges were removed for this; you fail to see the difference between vandalism and content disputes. For instance, this is not vandalism, yet it was rollbacked as such. There are many more instances of this, if you want me to dig them up. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an essay somewhere along the lines of "When six people are telling you you did something wrong, and zero people are agreeing with you, there's a really, really, really good chance that you've actually done something wrong"? --barneca (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The essay would be wrong. I'm still not seeing where the rollback page says "User may not use rollback to rollback known tenditious editors inserting blatant policy violations into the encyclopedia". McJeff (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback doesn't get removed for one mistake. You've been shown to have misused it since getting it back, multiple editors agree on that point. You need to accept there are other ways to hand a content dispute. Further, it IS a content dispute; TSC is NOT the only person who feels the Tucker Max article should have a criticism/controversy section. I suggest you take a few days off that entire article as well. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If multiple editors think I misused it, multiple editors are wrong. Once again, Wikipedia promotes the interests of the tenditious and obnoxious (theserialcomma) at the expense of the good editors trying to improve the encyclopedia (me). McJeff (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
One, this thread is over. Two, you're heading well into personal attack territory. Multiple editors looked and saw you use rollback on a content dispute after recovering the privilege and agreeing to use it responsibly. That's the facts. We all realize you want to protect Tucker Max's article from things you don't think belong, but you aren't going about it the right way. Please stop arguing tendentiously and disruptively, find some new pages to work on, nad get back to building the project. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Multiple editors should be refactored to multiple administrators. While you have a vested interest in Tucker Max, you need to realize that this discussion is in regards to a content dispute, not vandalism. If you have an issue with how rollback rights are removed, I suggest you take it up elsewhere, because your rollback rights will not be re-instated.. seicer | talk | contribs 05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AlexBlues - please block[edit]

AlexBlues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor has added his personal commentary to the userpage of editors who have apparently expressed opinions he disliked. See User:Spinner145 for the vandalized userpage of Spinner145, and Spinner145 for the contribution of Spinner145 that presumably was not appreciated by AlexBlues. See also User:78.51.89.247 for a anon userpage vandalized by AlexBlues and anon for the anons contribution. Novidmarana (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the user a note. I've deleted Spinner145's userpage, so that's now admin only. I don't think a block is merited at this time, as while it was a bit WP:POINTy, I think Alex was trying to communicate, however not in the most polite manner. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over Water fluoridation opposition[edit]

There's an edit-war between User:LOGANA and User:Troy 07. Troy reverted four times, while Logana reverted five times.

Also, one of Logana's edit summaries is classic: "CRAZY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WRITE ARTICLES". That should be an official policy!   Zenwhat (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I just noticed. Troy is an admin and indef-blocked Logana for being a "vandalism-only" account. An unblock is clearly in order and Troy should not have violated the 3RR. The person edit-war'd and the all-caps is annoying, but that isn't blatant vandalism. I agree with their revision and ScienceApologist's. I'd revert the article to Troy's version too, but then I don't want to be indef-blocked for dubious charges of vandalism either.   Zenwhat (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're not paying attention. Troy didn't indefblock, it was User:Rodhullandemu. And I do object to the block reason, but not to the block, itself. Troy should probably be blocked for 3RR if there's any likelyhood that others will restore SA version. I'm forced to agree that LOGANA's comments on the talk page certainly looked like vandalism, but he could just be mad (i.e., angry, not crazy). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am endorsing the block, but not for the reason as well. LOGANA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account created 23:25 31 July 2008 only hours after SA had completed the page moves without consensus or discussion. This is not implying that one is a sock for the other. All talk page comments are peppered with personal attacks and gross incivility, not to mention the crap in the edit summaries. He also edit warred on the talk page. A better block rationale would have been, "Gross incivility, personal attacks, edit warring" although given that this was a SPA, "vandalism" edges close.
Logana formerly edited under 66.65.85.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) whose first edit was this, followed by this and this all caps edit summary. This message to Troy is pretty self evident. seicer | talk | contribs 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:AE#ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing. seicer | talk | contribs 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also #help needed. I've requested semi-protection of the page to stop the sockpuppetry. --Clubjuggle T/C 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I should pay better attention, as should Zenwhat. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Disclosure: Twenty years ago, when in a position to do so, I voted against supporting fluoridation of water in York, however, that was the last thing on my mind when this matter arose, and that connection has only just occurred to me. I was watching New Users, as I normally do at 3:00 a.m. or so, and I flipped my cursor over User:LOGANA's contribs and saw a number to this article. As is my normal practice, I took a closer look and found this farrago in progress. I saw wholesale removal of sourced content, and good-faith reversions and warnings from User:Troy07, and that's without those from ClueBot. In the normal course of events, the removal warnings would have escalated to a 4im; but there wasn't time for that. I take the view that any rational editor, having been notified that his edits were questioned, would have taken the time to find out why and participate in a debate. But I didn't perceive we had a rational editor, we had a shouting WP:SPA. Hence my block to minimise further damage to the article. Maybe wrong reason, but the right thing to do. Having just checked the article history, I note that immediately before User:LOGANA appeared, an IP was making the same edits and being reverted by ClueBot. Go figure. Taking into account personal attacks, I do not apologise for the block. --Rodhullandemu 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll gladly unblock and reblock for the "right reasons" if anyone thinks there's much point in doing that. --Rodhullandemu 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin so it's not my place to make a call, but shouldn't this discussion be archived and handled under the existing Arbitration Enforcement thread? --Clubjuggle T/C 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Only if it can be proved that it was ScienceApologist who was using the account. Bidgee (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's Symbol unlikely.svg unlikely.--chaser - t 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not an Admin also but I think it was a "vandalism-only" account and support the block and reason. They removed a large amount of content that was sourced not once but five times and didn't use the talk page and was uncivil. Bidgee (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note here; the water fluoridation controversy/opposition/conspiracy article has been used for years to advance a fringe agenda and for much of that time has been on the margins of POV-forking. More eyes would be good. This is yet another article where it's a burned-out ScienceApologist versus a tenacious group of POV-pushers who I think scent victory thanks to the fact that SA has had so little backup for so long. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Due to more wholesale reverts, including that of one administrator, I have protected the page for two weeks. Take it to the talk page and find a compromise. seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you make a good point. Have you seen what I organized at Robert F. Kennedy assassination? That article was overrun by fringe theorists. The strategy was to bring in a highly competent and civil editor, in this case User:Fritzpoll who came to me for admin coaching. Fritzpoll rewrote the article top to bottom. The article qualified as a good article and is now listed at featured article review. The fringy POV pushing has stopped; it had to stop, because the article is in such good shape, there is no room for BS, and there are now lots of editors watching it.

I suggest a plan:

  1. Let's make a list of important articles that have been overrun by fringe views and POV pushing.
  2. Recruit admin hopefuls (as Fritzpoll was), or other experienced editors, to fix the bad articles one by one.
  3. Bring them up to WP:GA or WP:FA status. Establishing a quality standard and bringing in more eyes to review helps prevent regression.

When I started working on search engine optimization it was a mess of original research and link spam. Once it became a featured article, the BS stopped. We have here a pattern that is successful. Let's replicate it. Jehochman Talk 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Great idea: what we need generally is a WP:BASKETCASE rehabilitation project for articles, and I'd buy into that, subject to finding the right editors to manage articles without owning them. --Rodhullandemu 00:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the first step is to organize Wikipedia:WikiProject Bad Articles. How do we do that? Jehochman Talk 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it involves finding some willing participants and going to WP:COUNCIL with a proposal. I, for one, would be willing to participate. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Draft a proposal; advertise it; invite discussion; when it's sufficiently mature, post a proposal here. --Rodhullandemu 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely endorse this approach. Get the good editors involved, let the admins go back to enforcing good editing practice and end the madness of POV-pushers claiming that an admin is "involved" as soon as they start reverting nonsensical additions to the article. You need to find the right editor first, though. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I may try to organize a project. Meanwhile, keep eyes open for experienced editors who are not yet administrators. Such folks are ideal for overhauling "bad articles". Those who succeed can be nominated at WP:RFA. This strategy has two benefits: 1/ the improvement of poor articles, and 2/ the recruitment of new administrators with troll-management skills. Jehochman Talk 11:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I very much like the idea of a Bad Articles Wikiproject. I've made something of a speciality of rewriting articles from scratch to fix them, when I've been able to, but there have been plenty of occasions when I've come across a terrible article and been unable to do much about it because it's outside my area of expertise. Having somewhere to nominate articles for remedial work would be an excellent idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with User talk:72.14.117.122[edit]

I wonder if someone could help me try to get through to this editor. He or she is adding American Film Institute ranking information to film articles, but is sometimes doing so in ways that are detrimental to the articles. At first they were inserting the information as a main-level section, but I seem to have gotten them to put it in as a sub-section in an appropriate place. Now they're wikilinking "American Film Institute" in the section header, which I'm told is not a good idea because it fouls up screen readers. Worse, in several instances (the most recent of which I've listed on their talk page) in removing previous AFI information that was cited, they are not moving the citation into their new format. I've tried to talk to this editor, and others have also left messages about other problems with their editing, but they have not responded to any message that has been left.

I'd hate to have an editor blocked who appears to be capable and interested in adding good information, but I'm following this person around cleaning up their messes, and I'm starting to feel a bit like the guy at the circus who follows the elephants. (What? And give up show business?) If they would talk, at least I would know that they're getting the message, but so far, no luck. Maybe someone else would achieve better results. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment; if someone won't talk, they shouldn't edit. I'm strongly tempted to block them to get their attention; with an unblock as soon as they start talking. Any reason not to? That talk page shows a lot of patience on your part; I can't think of another solution, and others have tried. --barneca (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't really think of another way to get their attention. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of talk about civility here, but ignoring someone's questions, refusing to answer, is every bit is uncivil, and maybe worse because you have no idea what's going on in their heads. There's another old story about taking a very smart mule and whacking it over the head with a 2-by-4 because you have to get its attention first. Block it for an appropriate interval, and maybe then you'll get a response. If he simply waits out the block and does it again, double the block time. Keep doubling it until that 2-by-4 finally sinks in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for a month (I don't want to start small, and have them decide to wait out the block), but I'll unblock as soon as they begin talking. IP address looks pretty static, but it could be that they can change IP address if necessary. If a new IP address starts up where this one left off, point an admin to this thread and I suppose we'll keep blocking until they decide to talk. Hope this is the nudge they need. Good luck. --barneca (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

{out)I've removed the "resolved" marker, because the editor in question is now editing as User talk:Arataman 79, doing precisely the same things, and evading the block that was put on the IP address. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Arataman 79, and left them a message that they need to start communicating if they are to continue editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I was afraid of that; when someone ignores that many polite requests, it's because they really don't want to talk. I suggest whack-a-mole for a short while, to see if they're easily bored (although they strike me as someone who won't get easily bored), followed by an IP check at WP:RFCU if they don't stop. The good news is, they're easy to recognize, so socks should be blocked relatively quickly. --barneca (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Block evading IP79.74.34.151[edit]

This is a dynamic DSL block-evading sock of User:Tom Sayle. See also SSP from yesterday. Continuing to troll, see this diff JGHowes talk - 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

temp blocked. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Misofalalala[edit]

Looks like a copycat of the report I made above. Is there some minor league somewhere or something who's team managers have received instructions to put their teams on Wikipedia? Exxolon (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

After re-checking it appears they are creating articles on all the members of a football team in Hong Kong's top football league. I believe that means they meet our notability criteria but all the articles seem to consist of a variation on "Yau Kam Leung (Chinese: 游錦良, born 26 April 1985 in Hong Kong) is a Hong Kong professional football player playing for Hong Kong First Division League team Fourway (football). His position is Left-back." and an infobox. No independent sources are given. Might warrant a blanket redirect to the main team article? I'll leave a note on their talkpage and see what happens. Exxolon (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Update - their talk page is full of speedy deletion notices for these articles previously. Probably should've checked that first but I was a bit tired when I was editing earlier!Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I speedied (A7) them all originally as they had no more than the basic infobox. After the editor added the single line which claimed enough significance to force me to remove the CSD. They are currently unrefed, but that is probably easy enough to find, so they almost certainly pass all the basic requirements. --triwbe (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dagoth Ur, Mad God/userpage.js[edit]

Can someone delete this page please, It it a page of a retired editor that is not even java script. It also contains an "adopt me" template and i can't remove it so he is stuck in the "Users waiting for adoption category" cheers   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not a retired editor. He edited today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ooops it was a tired template. Well can someone remove the Adopt me template from that JS page?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Open Source Intelligence[edit]

While some of you above want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, perhaps someone else can come over to Open Source Intelligence and have a word with RobertDavidSteeleVivas (talk · contribs) aka Robert Steele (talk · contribs), who seems to have returned to assume ownership over an article on his pet project. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Resolved}} Obviously disruptive user. User given single/final warning.[44] Further disruption in the absence of any indication that (s)he intends to work productively on Wikipedia should be met with an indefinite block. Vassyana (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have disabled (and moved down) the "resolved" tag above because of continued disruptive conduct, coupled with the addition of external links that fail WP:EL and/or WP:COI: [45], [46]. I have previously removed these links and could be considered involved; could another administrator please take appropriate action against both accounts of Robert Steele?  Sandstein  15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. This edit summary should lead to an immediate block, especially after he was previously warned about civility. Corvus cornixtalk 18:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for continuing to disrupt and make uncivil edit summaries after warnings. --John (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Both accounts should really be blocked indefinitely unless the user indicates in some fashion that they will cease the incivility and disruption and work productively on-wiki. Vassyana (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The comments on his Talk page don't look as if he plans on changing his behavior. Corvus cornixtalk 19:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Term IP Vandalism[edit]

For over a month now, I've been dealing with this persistent vandal who keeps adding bogus info into certain film/TV related articles. He/she seems to use two IP ranges, 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, which are both registered to HughesNet. See my last 100 contributions for evidence, which shows a bunch of reverts to this guy's edits.

This person seems to strike once a day, usually between 12pm - 5pm UK time. We have blocked some of the single IPs, but only when he was currently active, as it stopped him from editing that day, and he switches to a new IP the next day. Warnings don't seem to be effective on him either.

Anyway, as I've said above, I've been chasing this guy for more than a month now, and I'm getting tired of it. This has been going on for too long now, and we're also starting to miss a few edits of his. I would like to request action been taking against this guy, preferably a 1 week - 1 month+ range block on 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, with both anonymous users only and account creation enabled, seeing he hasn't created any accounts, and it won't hurt the legitimate users that much. We could also send an abuse report about him to HughesNet, but I don't think that would be as effective as a range block. --AAA! (AAAA) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's MascotGuy, isn't it? –xeno (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It would appear so. In which case, a report to Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/MascotGuy may prompt the type of rangeblock being requested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is MascotGuy, especially since the edits don't seem related (unless you can show me a diff from a confirmed MG sock and compare it to one of the IPs' edits), and the IP vandal usually targets the same articles (such as Jake T. Austin Winx Club, and List of Power Rangers villains, to name a few). No recent MG socks I've seen targeted those articles, and the IP vandal hasn't targeted any articles that any of the recent MG socks have targeted. I always thought of him to be related to this old vandal. However, I could be wrong about this. --AAA! (AAAA) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
MascotGuy is from San Diego, not the UK. Corvus cornixtalk 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that, but I live in the UK. That's why I based it on UK time. --AAA! (AAAA) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't understand what you were saying. :) Corvus cornixtalk 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It raises the point though, that if this is MG, he's editing between 4am and 9am his time. Is that likely? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AAA^ has joined #wikipedia-en on the freenode IRC network, and me and him chatted a bit about this. I'm afraid to block the affected ranges due to not knowing if I will cause collateral damage. No short term block (under 24 hours) will work as the vandalism appears to be once or twice a day. I suggested to him to put forth a checkuser request, and have a checkuser deal with if the ranges should or should not be blocked. —— nixeagle 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a CheckUser request, which can be found here. --AAA! (AAAA) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Greenwich Village Edit War[edit]

Resolved: Page protection requested at requests for page protection in whatever version it is found in. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


There is an ongoing Edit War at Greenwich Village between these 2 users:User:Mynameisstanley and User:Mafia Expert over whether or not Vincent Gigante lived in the village. I've reverted the last edit here:[47] and I left a notice on the talk page here:[48]. Both editors have violated WP:3RR already and there is no end in sight. Administrative supervision is required. Modernist (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


Please remove from Gigante from "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day" First, it category is "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day" Gigante went to prison in 1997 and died there. Second, Gigante did not live in Greenwich Village. His lawyers claimed he lived there and that he was insane. Gigante later admitted in court that the whole thing was a scam. [1] Gigante had two families and lived in two different places. He lived in New Jersey with his wife and their five children and in a town house on the exclusive Upper East Side with his mistress and their three children.[2]

The article is about "Greenwich Village" not a criminal who use to walk around there for a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talkcontribs) 02:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Before changing the article again, wait for other comments that might reflect a differing point of view. For what it's worth IMHO I don't agree with you. However please let others voice their views...Modernist (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The notorious mobster Vincent Gigante grew up on the same streets in Greenwich Village where he would spend most of his adult life. Vincent Gigante, Mafia Leader Who Feigned Insanity, Dies at 77 He was born and raised there. Whether in later life he actually lived there or not, is not the point. He spent most of his days in Greenwich Village and was a characteristic figure wandering the streets in his bathrobe and slippers, mumbling incoherently to himself. That this was an elaborate act is also not the point: he acted it out in Greenwich Village. All in all, I think it deserves to be mentioned in an article on Greenwih Village. If you think it does not belong under 'Present day', put it under 'History' or – maybe – in 'In fiction and drama'. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus on the issue. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, page unprotected (I am the protecting admin). Tan ǀ 39 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tatkanic[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 1 week. –xeno (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this editor is trying to contribute but they all look like they should be deleted. Can someone check his contrib history and nuke the whole lot that are not to his userspace? Exxolon (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

They were blocked for this once already and advised to read our guidelines for notability. I also emailed them specifically about this, responding to an unblock-en-l request. So, blocked for 1 week and left a note for them about not adding articles about their mates and youth football team. –xeno (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response. Exxolon (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the report. –xeno (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and salted the article names; I don't foresee real articles being written at these titles. I have a sinking feeling they'll just re-appear with different capitalization, but I gave it a shot. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the user understands English that well. He appears to have been creating vanity articles about his Bulgarian youth football team. Corvus cornixtalk 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Misofalalala[edit]

Looks like a copycat of the report I made above. Is there some minor league somewhere or something who's team managers have received instructions to put their teams on Wikipedia? Exxolon (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

After re-checking it appears they are creating articles on all the members of a football team in Hong Kong's top football league. I believe that means they meet our notability criteria but all the articles seem to consist of a variation on "Yau Kam Leung (Chinese: 游錦良, born 26 April 1985 in Hong Kong) is a Hong Kong professional football player playing for Hong Kong First Division League team Fourway (football). His position is Left-back." and an infobox. No independent sources are given. Might warrant a blanket redirect to the main team article? I'll leave a note on their talkpage and see what happens. Exxolon (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Update - their talk page is full of speedy deletion notices for these articles previously. Probably should've checked that first but I was a bit tired when I was editing earlier!Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I speedied (A7) them all originally as they had no more than the basic infobox. After the editor added the single line which claimed enough significance to force me to remove the CSD. They are currently unrefed, but that is probably easy enough to find, so they almost certainly pass all the basic requirements. --triwbe (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats[edit]

Catherinefionarichardson (talk · contribs) has felt it necessary to make legal threats on my talkpage. If anyone could kindly have a look and take action if necessary. JFW | T@lk 12:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a legal threat. What's the background to the issue? Rudget 12:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The background is that a user called Alpinist (talk · contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry. Edits along the same lines then started appearing from the 88.108 range. Assuming as one would that this was more of the same Alpinist, I am now being accused of "defamation" of Alpinist because I attribute the behaviour of the 88.108 socks to Alpinist.
Is the background particularly important for deciding on issues of legal threats? A legal threat is a legal threat, I thought. JFW | T@lk 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There's legal threats, and then there's legal threats. This likely goes against policy, but I'd be inclined to just ignore it in this case; threatening to sue for defamation of someone else's username is just so stupid, it's hard to take seriously. I'll leave a message on her talk page, but won't go further myself. If someone wants to follow policy more stringently and block, I won't lose any sleep, but I think it's probably unnecessary. --barneca (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

All good and well, but this is sounding more serious now than it did before: diff. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. --barneca (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Good block. Threatening legal action creates an environment of intimidation that is poisonous to neutrality. Chillum 14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, IanR2008 (talk · contribs) has sprung up. Clearly whoever I have upset is not going to go away easily. Wish urgent input could be applied. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked him, and someone else has dealt with the summary. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Theresa. I've already semied my talkpage myself. With this kind of harrasment, I will WP:IAR. Suspect temporary semi of Talk:Simon Wessely may be prudent, but I will await your opinion on that one. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm loathed to do that. The anon hasn't edited that page in a while. I think we should keep a close eye for a while and see what happens. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. But that talkpage and the related article is the nidus of our disagreement, and if the situation is going to spill over anywhere, it will be there. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

True but the way I see it is this. He comes to you talk page and finds he can't edit, he either gives up and goes away or tries another page possibly Talk:Simon Wessely. Now if that page is also semprotected he can easily post somewhere else. We can't semi everywhere. Much better to keep a close watch and spot him quickly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dagoth Ur, Mad God/userpage.js[edit]

Can someone delete this page please, It it a page of a retired editor that is not even java script. It also contains an "adopt me" template and i can't remove it so he is stuck in the "Users waiting for adoption category" cheers   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not a retired editor. He edited today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ooops it was a tired template. Well can someone remove the Adopt me template from that JS page?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The never ending war of ideas at Talk:Centrifugal force[edit]

A debate over the science in the article has raged on and on. The talk page is a mile long, and there are 8 archives more of contentious arguing. It has also spilled over to Talk:Frame of reference. Edit history shows as many as 65 edits a day by just a few editors, quibbling back and forth at each other. I tried to get everyone to chill out and let it go for a minute, but was roundly ignored. I opened an RFC, but the tone and length of the debate seemed to have a "chilling affect" and other editors mostly did not get involved, meanwhile the core group refused to take a break to let other opinions and views into the conversation. I opened a case at the mediation cabal, and the mediator gave up because the participants in the debate wouldn't participate, so I skipped formal mediation as it's unlikely they are interested in that either. I'm turning here because somehow, this debate needs to be brought to a close and the scope of the article clearly defined. I do this without much actual hope it will help (you will know what I mean when you see the page) but I don't know where else to go with this and I am frankly fed up of trying. Good Luck. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what we can do. If mediation fails then Wp:RFAr is the next step. Let them deal with it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this a content dispute or a conduct dispute? —Kurykh 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force is the new 0.999.... Give it time, and it will resolve itself. The article's pretty OK in terms of physical accuracy: it's just far, far, too detailed at the moment, as part of the process of resolving a earlier, and far more intense, edit war. Most of the current fuss appears to be related to distinguishing frame transformations from coordinate transformations, a big improvement on the previous full-on furious disagreements about Newton's laws and the philosophy of physical law in general. -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest getting User:ScienceApologist involved, since he's not one to put up with the patent nonsense that is plaguing that article. As his work with paranormal would show, he can cut through the B.S. like a hot knife through butter. We seem to be under attack by pushers of fringe views, time to send in the heavy artillery. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck. The dynamics of rotating frames is the Monty Hall problem of classical physics, and for the same reason: our natural "common sense" understanding of the problem gives results that are both intuitively obvious and completely wrong. Hence the need for science education... -- The Anome (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Julie Dancer, repeated personal attack and harrassment[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#How strange? - personal attack after final warning given; repeated harassment emails to me and User:Kevin (see User talk:Kevin), as well as a professor at my school whom I have no relations with...--Jiuguang (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

...and if you had no relations with Dr. Christensen then why without his knowledge might you be editing the Wikipedia article about him? Besides, why would anyone have reason to personally attack Jiuguang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one week, given that there was a previous final warning. I disabled e-mail, as well, given the concern above. It's clear that she is passionate about her chosen subject, which is good in itself - but this goes way, way too far. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I also received e-mails from Julie Dancer. Be advised that they have many sock puppets and are likely to continue harassment using these; I advise blocking all of them for a similar period. Dcoetzee 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thrilling. Is there an SSP or RFCU page I should see? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Julie Dancer. Also, a new User:Kadiddlehopper have joined in on the discussion using similar tactics, and based on this removed talk page content here, the user has a history of sock-puppetry and antisemitic attacks. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked this account for a week for block evasion. I'm going to block for longer if any more socks appear. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the threats by her and her sock on that VP thread, I am surprised at only one week. DGG (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I blocked before I saw this thread, and the previous sockpuppetry. I've reset to indef. Next stop is WP:RFCU Kevin (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • All of this blocking activity is clearly for the purpose of fulfilling the agenda of Communist dictatorship by the masses through the act of denying users the opportunity and benefit of reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.224 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment, but if this diff is what is being referred to as "antisemitic", I'm not sure that is accurate. In a discussion that compared the Patriot Act to Nazi Germany, this user referred to another as a "lieutenant in the SS". While obviously inappropriate (and somewhat confusing), it was contextual to the conversation (i.e. a Nazi Germany comparison), and not necessarily a reflection of an antisemitic attitude. I am in now way defending the comment, but I also don't think an editor should be labeled "antisemitic" inappropriately, as this may severely influence actions taken against them. If I misread the situation, or if the accusation is based on other, more relevant comments, then feel free to ignore me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
While I concur that the November 2007 comment was borderline anti-semetic at best, I don't think it has a bearing on this block. It's reasonably clear that this editor is working in tandem with Julie Dancer, to the point of echoing similar accusations (utilizing similar phrasing to do so), and is easily considered a meatpuppet. It's quite possible that they're socks, which checkuser would reveal. As for the one week block of Julie, I conceded that it might be a little light for the threats indicated. My thinking was that it was a little heavy for a first block, but that anything less than a full week had limited value. It was also unclear at the time whether it was someone whose article was deleted flipping out about it, or someone with genuine malice of intent (with threats and contacting an editor's college off-wiki, for example). No objection from me if other editors think a longer (or indefinite) block is warranted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the first place it is Jiuguang who is attacking Julie Dancer on the grounds of his difference with the article she wrote in the Wikia which uses logic to define, support and defend the existence of God. I agree that some Jews may be offended by her personal conclusion that Jesus Christ is God but she is only claiming that as the personal basis of her religion and not implying that anyone else does not have the right to believe whatever they choose. In the case of Jiuguang he is not Jewish and was born in Beijing, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, trained from a very early age on computers and sent to Atlanta at age 12, where he eventually entered Georgia Tech where he is now a robotics student. His statement that he disagrees with Julie Dancer's article in the Wikia makes his subsequent nomination for deletion of her Optimal classification article in the Wikipedia a personal attack and his subsequent deletions of her links between her article in the Wikibooks and references in the Wikipedia an act of stalking and harassment against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


These IPs should be blocked. They are being used solely to attack several users. [49] [50] [51] --C S (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my patience has been exhausted. I'm reseting the block to indefinite because of these ridiculous block evading personal attacks. Kevin (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer - Kevin (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 Completed - Alison 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. I was ready to do this but Kevin beat me to it. For the record, this sort of obvious sockpuppeting doesn't require an WP:RFCU: it passes the sniff test, and it's perfectly fine to treat obvious sockpuppets as such without the imprimatur of a checkuser. Nandesuka (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, these are all perfectly obvious. In this case I thought that there may have been more socks held in reserve, hence the checkuser. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory[