Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive507

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Mass replacement of www.talkorigins.org with www.toarchive.org[edit]

Resolved: Site back online. flaminglawyerc 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Relatively new user Armchair info guy (talk · contribs) has been replacing www.talkorigins.org (registered to the TalkOrigins Archive Foundation of Houston, Texas) with www.toarchive.org (registered to a .edu address in Staten Island, New York) when http://www.toarchive.org/foundation redirects to http://www.talkorigins.org/foundation/ -- That seems very suspicious to me.

It looks like several dozen such AWB changes were been made two days ago on January 10. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

From googling, it looks like toarchive.org was a domain name temporarily used last month while resolving DNS problems with talkorigins. See [1]. Why he made those changes two days ago, I have no idea, you'd have to ask him. --B (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That groups.google.com thread seems to agree with rolling back. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the site notice near the end of http://www.talkorigins.org/ which is repeated on http://www.toarchive.org/ -- Note that the bug report address on http://www.toarchive.org/origins/contact.html goes to talkorigins.org.

Please roll-back or as appropriate. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the Google Groups thread cited by B above, this is likely harmless, but I believe the admin's request on that thread supports mine to roll back. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Weird. I'll try and take a closer look in a sec. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, so we are clear, the URL changes were to (for whatever reason) avoid a DNS caching problem that seems to have been resolved? If it is, shouldn't one site redirect to (rather than mirror) the other? And if that is the case, we should roll back the changes to ensure that all EL's link to the same place? Or is there more to this? Protonk (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes; I don't know; Yes, No: I think you have it all, please roll back if it's not too much trouble. No biggie, apparently, just a nice guy at a .edu putting up a backup archive. 69.228.82.93 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As no-one else has, I have informed the user in question about this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did. This appears to be discussed here as well. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Alright. I was going to work through the contributions and roll them back, but I decided against it. I'll let the user comment here before I do anything. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm the guy who made the changes. I already notified the TO community weeks ago here and here. But I'll go into a little more detail here, since there's nothing to be suspicious about. I've only recently started reading up on evolution a few weeks ago, and had never known about TO before. But I found archived versions of the refs at archive.org and thought it was a great resource, so I would've changed the refs to those if I hadn't googled and found the toarchive mirror. So as I read more and more articles I manually changed the refs to the working mirror. Since it's ref'd all over the place, I did a google search and saw there were at least a hundred sites with TO refs. So I decided to get AWB approval and take care of them all myself, which I did.

Just being bold and making useful contributions like I have been since the past summer when I first started editing. Personally I don't care if you change any or all of them back so long as they're working links. That is by far the #1 priority. (As of this moment, talkorigins.org is still down). I stand by what I did 100% because the Evolution article alone gets several thousand hits a day and broken refs are always disappointing.

--Armchair info guy (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

edit: One additional item I didn't think to mention earlier - if consensus is to change all the links back to "talkorigins.org" instead of the perfectly good mirror "toarchive.org" then please don't blindly revert all my previous edits. When I manually changed a couple dozen of them a few weeks ago I typically cleaned up additional reference info beyond just changing the URL. So please don't clobber that. But the AWB ones were just a change of URL. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to leave the links as they originally were, but make a little note to the side of the link, along with a link to the archived site. Like:
which gives a working link, but also lets people know that they're not going to some knockoff site. flaminglawyerc 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I have a vote here or not, but if I do then I agree with Flaming's idea. Best possible scenario for working links, which like I said earlier is the #1 priority for good refs. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea: remove the links to both, as failing WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've argued this many a time myself. Some of the talkorigins content has been published in a book, The Counter-creationism Handbook, and where possible, claims should be sourced to that book imo. And the website is a good resource for copies of documents and so on. But a lot of claims I found cited from there were just self-published do-it-yourself messageboard-style debunkery written by amateur enthusiasts and drop-ins. Some evolution antagonist/s have set up a similarly styled creation site of their own[2] -sometimes editors come demanding to reference claims from there as well. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Have to concur there, even though it's hardly an issue for ANI. It's a very useful site, and probably the best evolution site targeted at the average internet user. That said, much like Wikipedia, it's best used for pointing you at a reliable source rather then being treated as one.—Kww(talk) 11:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As of today,http://www.talkorigins.org/ is back online, and http://toarchive.org/ is there as a stable alternative so there seems to be no urgent need to change the links back. My thanks go to Armchair info guy for keeping our links active during this temporary blackout which lasted longer than I expected. Perhaps worth asking if they intend to keep the alternative site up and running indefinitely. . dave souza, talk 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Superdoopergipsy[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Chris G --ZimZalaBim talk 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
a.) You are an admin, b.) as an admin, you should know that this type of vandal is supposed to be reported at AIV. (this feels familiar). John Reaves 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock lookout[edit]

Please could admins be alert for the type of vandalism (usually relating to Drake Circus shopping centre, but also involving impersonation and attacks) carried out by the listed users at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mike-Jones-at-dc, and add suspects to the list there? They seem to be popping out all over. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain phrases related to this sort of vandalism have been added to some of the vandalism reporting bots. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User undoing good edits[edit]

Forgive me if this is not the place to bring this up, but when user:Leszek Jańczuk undid some perfectly good edits of mine, I noticed he has a habit of doing this. What can be done?--88.227.200.19 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided diffs, however having glanced at some of your edits on Duman (band) I can see that you were bold in making changes, and they were reverted. Unfortunately, many of your edits were not overly helpful - the deletion of approximate title translations, fragmentation of sentences, introducing confusing word order - I can understand why they may have been reverted to the previous WP:CONSENSUS version. To call them "vandalism" may not have been correct, as they appear to be good faith edits. Please note, that many editors look less closely at edits made anonymously - I do recommend you obtain a userid to prevent that propensity. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As I believe in the occasional use of WP:Do template the regulars, I advised Leszek of him being a little WP:Bitey, and have also advised him of this ANI (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I see where you are coming from about my particular edits, even if I do feel my edits were extremely helpful :) Thing is, I noticed a couple of other users complaining with similar issues, and a quick glance at his edits with undos shows that many other deleted edits were worthwhile. A lot of times, it seemed the original good edits went unnoticed and were lost forever. I will make sure to include diffs in the future.--88.227.200.19 (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The user in question made this revert of an edit of mine, which I considered to be appalling. O Fenian (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be in good faith, but yes, an awful reversion. Perhaps the user just needs some talking to about why his reversions are inappropriate? neuro(talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure one could call it an "awful reversion". The reason is that it was material about a living person, and therefore comes under the policy of WP:BLP. The material was totally unsourced, and, in WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material we read: "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." So, the removal was permitted, if my reading is correct, under the policy concerning biographical material about living people.

Whether a simple removal was advisable, however, is a more tricky question: in situations like this, my own feeling is that one could have conformed with policy if the material was transferred or moved to the talk page, with an invitation to the editor who added it to the article to supply the appropriate verification, on the talk page. The material could then be transferred back into the article space if verification by means of suitable citation from a reliable source were found and added to the material on the talk page. If no verification was forthcoming, then it could be deleted from the talk page as well.

I thought this might be a way of acting in conformance with the policies about BLP as well as giving editors who add reasonable, yet unverified material, the chance of completing their obligations and not seeing their contributions simply deleted. However, my reading still is that the removal of the material was acting in accordance to policy.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The material I removed should not be described by any competent editor or administrator as "reasonable", assuming they have actually read it? O Fenian (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Argh! I read it, but got it completely the wrong way around partly because there was more than one reversion happening, and so I misinterpreted it. What you write is, of course, correct, and the material should have been removed under WP:BLP.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Userpage with excess detail[edit]

Resolved: Sorted. neuro(talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, underage users are normally discouraged to reveal excess personal details. I came across the userpage of Mr. Chicago (talk · contribs) which reveals his full name and his school information. Could someone look into this? LeaveSleaves 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a big concern to me. I'll leave a note at the user's talk page, however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the edit history of that page is rather bizarre; see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Thomas_J._Gaudette. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the age and the article category. John Reaves 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how this is tagged sorted. There was no note left on the user's talk regarding the issue, nor was it made obviously clear that this is a non-issue. LeaveSleaves 02:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks, of a sort[edit]

B b b 123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Malub0ii94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Two users created 7 minutes apart, one making minor vandalistic edits, the other reverting. I warned the one making the vandalistic edits, and no action since. Just kind of an oddity maybe worth watching. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The most common profession held by convicted arsonists is... firefighter. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A comforting thought. Naught. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness, revealing of personal information from an apparent child[edit]

Resolved: Incident resolved. neuro(talk) 06:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Amidst bizarre contributions to User talk:Kyle6, there appears to be a child revealing his age. I can't recall the proper protocol for dealing with this sort of thing, so if someone would help me out that would be great. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to remove the information, hope the removal sticks, and not make any kind of fuss that would just draw attention to it unless the removal doesn't stick. I've removed the age claim; we'll see what happens. Note that I haven't done anything about the general tone of his talkpage. Gavia immer (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CHILD. neuro(talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw another, & removed it. I left some advice, which I hope will be understood. DGG (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how age alone is dangerous. Maybe if he was giving away name or even DOB I might be worried.--Pattont/c 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily "dangerous", but potentially so. Better safe than sorry. neuro(talk) 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It keeps us from having the same pedo problems that Myspace has had to deal with. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What keeps us from having those problems is that (1) we are not a social networking site, (2) we are not a place where young teens and preteens hang out, (3) everything that happens here is public, and (4) we keep a complete record of who does what. Compared to that, preventing minors from posting personal information is minor. --Carnildo (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Block without warning[edit]

I want to block this user even though there is but one edit and no real warning. Sole edit was to disparage person by same name. Need feedback so as not to be an evil, power hungry admin. Dlohcierekim 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned. No further editing since last warning. It is probably likely that the user may continue vandalizing wikipedia, but we should AGF for now and wait for that to happen instead of preemptively blocking someone.-Andrew c [talk] 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was concerned that the only purpose of the account was to disparage the real person by the same name. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the guy's "contribution" was deleted, it's hard to judge good faith, although the fact of it being deleted tells you something. I typically don't bother with a vandal with just one entry, but if a pattern begins to emerge, I turn him in to WP:AIV. Warnings are a courtesy, but are not required for registered users who are obviously there only to wreak havoc. IP addresses get cut more slack due to often being shared IP's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If we have a user called "Leroy Fakename" (pronounced 'fah-keh-NA-meh' - it's Japanese!), and his sole edit is to make an article talking about how Leroy Fakename is a horrible evil piece of filth who should be killed... then clearly we should block that user for "impersonating Leroy Fakename". DS (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Although in your Japanese example, I'd like to see the pronunciation guide for "Leroy". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's simple: it's 'ルロイ'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Awright, that clears things up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Likewise the Silver-washed Fritillary --Rodhullandemu 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, DS. That was close to my reasoning. Did I mention the sole contrib was to disparage a person of that name? I was kinda hoping another admin would review that contrib and decide whether or not the extraordinary action of an immediate block was n order. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked, but FWIW, based on the content of the edit, I would have blocked on the spot. People who would write that aren't the kind of people who would contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. – wodup – 04:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Turning him in to WP:AIV after just the one entry probably would have resulted in a block, if the one entry was offensive enough. It never hurts to use AIV. The worst they would do, is to do nothing. And it may well get faster results than posting here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this case much different from KANES FAT and User:Musella74. Are you telling me that I should have blocked Musella74 on sight for that one edit? I know I have strong feelings about users who I think may become repeat offenders, but we have a warning system for a reason, no (and AGF)? And seriously, how many of you guys' first edit was a test or even vandalism (perhaps from an IP address)? I know it isn't likely at all that every single account whose first edit is vandalism will eventually turn admin, but still... Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not comfortable blocking users without warning (except in cases of confirmed sock puppets, inappropriate usernames, or rare legal issues with an accompanying call to the authorities). I don't see the harm in letting the warning system play out. But maybe I should be harsher, or maybe we should change some of our policies to allow for such single edit/block scenarios. Looking through my admin logs, maybe we should block User:Musella74, User:Babilingbaboon, or User:TsukasaSonozaki (among others for sure) retroactively because they creating new articles for the sole purpose of disparaging a living person (not that blocks are even supposed to be punitive). Am I alone here? Have I missed the point somewhere?-Andrew c [talk] 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I see them as very different. Musella74's article is extremely mild compared to the article written by the subject of this thread. "... is fat and worthless" vs full name, physical details, birthday, several disparaging remarks and accusations, and a suicide threat, too. – wodup – 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to have username ARYAN818 reviewed[edit]

To whom it may concern,

It is respectfully requested to have the username of ARYAN818 reviewed for deletion or for username change. This individual has had a review for six months with regards to changing his controversial username and was blocked during that time for also his disruption, vandalism, and intolerance of other racial or ethnic groups. There was a condition that the block would be lifted when he changes his username. However, he has not done so and has stopped editing ever since. However, just last year, he came back again and it looks like his previous edits from 2007 have been removed including those on his talk page at the request of the user. Now, this individual is back again with the username he refused to change due to previous requests from other admins and continues to be disruptive on Wikipedia. Please have a look into this. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Condition? Vandalism? WP:DIFFs please. About the username: if this has not gone to WP:RFCN yet, it is premature here.  Sandstein  07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are some previous complaints against him:

Please take this to WP:RFCN, which is the right place to ask for review. -- The Anome (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do that. Thanks. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

False information posting[edit]

Ccwstandard has been editing the Northland Cable Television page and adding incorrect information regarding broadcast station carriage and suggesting that the company would file for bankruptcy.

Specifically, KMVU mentioned in the post is carried in both the Mount Shasta and Yreka cable systems AND the company has NOT and is not in the process of filing for bankruptcy.

Request that user be blocked from posting information regarding Northland.

Northland (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request that YOU stop editing the same first. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You do not seem to have contacted Ccwstandard (talk · contribs) in order to attempt to resolve this issue. Please do this first. Read WP:DR for advice on how to proceed. And yes, as Jéské Couriano says, you should not edit articles about your own business.  Sandstein  19:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Correcting unsourced claims that your business is going through bankruptcy seems acceptable to me. Although the editor should read our conflict of interest policy such an edit seems reasonably acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to chime in - yeah, Northland's actions so far seem fine to me. Northland, you definitely should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, our policy on editing topics you're personally involved in, but removing unsourced negative information is defintely allowed. Gavia immer (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There was some sourced material which I've restored, but the rest needs to be properly sourced; and the username was clearly a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wierd behaviour from User:Caloss[edit]

Resolved: Talking to contributor elsewhere about how to handle disputes. No admin action necessary, imo, unless behavior continues. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks,

I have a bit of a weird situation with User:Caloss whose only response to messages on his/her talk page is to blank the page. They appear to be following me around a couple of articles, undoing reverts or edits I've made. For example this edit rolled back the removal I'd made of uncited claims, using an unverifiable citation to put them back. When I pointed that out and removed them again they restored them, this time using a URL that only backed up one claim. this revert rolled back bits on the Death of Baby P I'd reverted because it had named the child and parents, luckily oversight had responded to an email I'd sent, so they didn't revert to the deleted revisions where the names were mentioned. And finally today [restoring a spam link (well a link I consider spam) to an article I put up for a prod because it looks like it only exists as a vehicle to promote the link the first place. The only interaction I've gotten was when I reverted the spam link (and I can't do it any more due to 3rr) and put a user warning on their talk page in the hope they might respond was a failed attempt to respond with a warning on mine and a lie in the revert summary, "several editors claimed that the link is not spam, define spam or stop vanalizing" when the only persons editing the pages are him and I. In the edits on Marcus Brigstocke the edit summaries were rather untruthful too, claiming the references proved the edit when they didn't. It's all rather bizarre and amusing in its own way, but I don't know how to proceed, if it counts as vandalism or just pettiness (on theirs or my part) , or even if it's worth bothering with at all. I wouldn't have brought it up at all, except for the edits on Death of Baby P. --Blowdart | talk 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From the sidelines, it looks like it's being done in an effort to harass you, possibly in retaliation for your earlier engagement at File hosting service. Under the circumstances, I suspect the place to start may have been WP:WQA, since being advised by any outsider might de-escalate matters. I'm not sure admin intervention is necessary at this stage. Since it's here, though, I'll speak to him (or her). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah you're right, wrong place entirely, apologies. Not had any interaction with WQA, so completely missed it! --Blowdart | talk 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Blowdart removed my edits on the talk page User_talk:Blowdart&oldid=264025072 I have to respond here. Both me and Davidbroooks posted a link in Dep_musician. The link does not meet the requirements to be Wikipedia:SPAM, and no other arguments besides removal have appeared.

--Caloss (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Einsteincorrea[edit]

Resolved: blanked per WP:CHILD

Einsteincorrea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

If taken at face value, this is nothing more than a "vanity" user ID of a 15-year old with a little too much info. What should be done, if anything? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanked, informed of WP:CHILD. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to restore the Talk:Albert Einstein page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done my best to meddle here and will let WP:OVERSIGHT finish the job. BencherliteTalk 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks. I got the major "Wikpedia has encountered error" message -the one that usually means the servers are down (not the usual delete error message) and assumed the page hadn't been deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

66th Golden Globe Awards[edit]

Rio de oro (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC): There has been several attempts of vandialismn on 66th Golden Globe Awards. Some should keep an eye on it.

Semi-protected for 3 days. EdokterTalk 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

The article discussing the Gaza conflict is obviously controversial and not surprisingly has generated some soap-boxing on the discussion page. I have attempted to remove the most severe soapboxing which generally has no relevance to the article (change , roughly 10,000 bytes of text ) but other users are restoring the deleted text saying the deletions hurt the flow of conversation history. I am attempting to follow Wikipedia:Talk#Editing comments when removing the text. I am not one-hundred percent certain but I believe it is appropriate to remove this text and so I hope for assistance. I apologize if I am in the wrong. Some guy (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong here? I'm surprised to have gotten no response. Some guy (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Some -- but definitely not all -- of the "soapboxing" does seem to be at least marginally germane to improving the article. Instead of clearing out whole sections of a thread to get rid of the distracting, futile chit-chat, point out in the thread that the Talk page is not a forum, and if that fails, paste a {{uw-chat1}} (or chat2 or chat3 or chat4 as it may escalate) on the Talk pages of those editors who choose to continue engaging in silliness. You'll have a situation where clear warnings have been given, after which heavier-handed actions like reverting unhelpful thread posts and requesting administrator intervention can be undertaken with a clearer conscience and greater force for consensus. --Dynaflow babble 10:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope that made sense; I'm rather sleep-deprived. Actually, come to think of it, ArbCom has imposed sanctions for all editors of Israel-Palestine conflict articles, so you may want to read through this to see what it suggests is appropriate behavior on those articles and what to do about it if someone is "misusing" the encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. --Dynaflow babble 10:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You've scrubbed one side of the soap, and left the other side's lather in.Hard articles generate sweat. But it is improper to ask only one of the two contendents to scrub up and off after each round. The point is valid, its execution partial.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sudsy metaphors aside, the sanction applies to all editors involved in those articles. --Dynaflow babble 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, the decision states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." That seems pretty straightforward. --Dynaflow babble 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. And to stress Nishidani's comment: Especially in these cases, it's important to step back and treat all sides equally. Other tools that are useful are archiving and hiding of obviously off-topic threads. But in any case, don't remove just one side of the discussion and in particular don't remove or archive comments that have been commented upon without removing the replies as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My preferred method is to use my template User:Cerejota/soapbox for clear soapboxing that has very little article value, and User:Cerejota/trolls for plain trolling, which is when people try to derail discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to treat anyone unequally. The page is really long and I didn't want to dig through all of it. Honestly I just noticed the pattern that basically all of "NonZionist"'s posts were soapbox rants and I searched for and removed the ones that (I thought) had no relevance to improving the article. I tried not to put any political bias into it, while I sort of felt that the people arguing the text should stay were clearly biased. Whatever, this has taken way too much time, I don't care anymore. Some guy (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist seems like a certified troll, I sometimes wonder if he is either a false-flag operation, or some 4chan lulz seeker, or simply a very misguided pro-Palestinian editor - kind of a Zeq with out the edit warring. Best recipe for dealing him is to ignore and don't feed, he ain't serious about anything Wikipedia stands for, or at least his behavior in the talk page doesn't betray anything other than that. I will say, however, that anyone who wants to put discretionary on him should do it. He adds nothing of value to the articles, unlike other editors with POVs. --Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet at Little Green Footballs[edit]

Resolved: indef blocked as a sock of an indef-blocked troll. Horologium (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, a POV vandal hit the articles Little Green Footballs and Charles Foster Johnson. I wrote this up on WP:ANI [3]. After his initial account, User:LGOutcast, was indef blocked, he came back as User:LittleGreenVolleyball and IP address 98.194.194.45. LittleGreenVolleyball was indef blocked himself, the IP was blocked for a month.

New user Lizard1000's first two contributions were POV-pushing on Little Green Footballs. The username and the general attitude are an easy pass of the duck test.

McJeff (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics[edit]

User:Sanfy has redirected Mangalorean Catholics to Mangalorean Goans. The User was previously blocked for such vandalism as can be seen from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sanfy. He had logged off and using his IP, he had redirected the Page from Mangalorean Catholics to Mangalorean Goans. Even today, [4], he redirected the Page. This is nothing but vandalism. How many warnings should we give this User? The User cannot be let scott-free. KensplanetTC 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, how can you say its vandlism? I have provided this relaible source from the Daily Times (Pakistan) newspaper which clearly states that the community is called Mangalorean Goans and not Mangalorean Catholics.--Sanfytalk 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY SANFY
(1). [5] using his ID
(2). [6] using his IP
(3). [7] using his ID.

Inspite of repeatedly warning him do not move the Page, he has moved it again. This time he has something new. Under the pretext of the Daily Times (Pakistan) newspaper, he moved the Page again. He knew it that that was considered vandalism previously. Still, he didn't even bother to discuss on the Talk Page. KensplanetTC 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is going by a relaible source vandalism? Mangalorean Catholics are actually called Mangalorean Goans and to prove it this was the best source. As per informing on the talk page I did'nt knew that I had to do, otherwise I would surely do so.--Sanfytalk 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please have a glance on a simple Google Book search on Mangalorean Catholics: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=Mangalorean%20Catholics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

A Google Book Search on Mangalorean Goans: http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=Mangalorean+Goans&btnG=Search+Books

  • Lobo, Michael. A Genealogical Encyclopaedia of Mangalorean Catholic Families.
  • Lobo, Michael (2000). Distinguished Mangalorean Catholics 1800-2000 - A Historico-Biographical Survey of the Mangalorean Catholic Community. Camelot Publishers. ISBN 9788187609018.
  • Lobo, Michael (1999). Mangaloreans World-wide: An International Directory of the Mangalorean Catholic Community. Camelot Publishers. ISBN 8187609001.
  • Lobo, Michael (2000). The Mangalorean Catholic Community — A Professional History / Directory.
  • Prabhu, Mohan. Ancient and pre-modern History of the Mangalorean Catholic Community.
  • Prabhu, Alan Machado (1999). Sarasvati's Children: A History of the Mangalorean Christians. I.J.A. Publications. ISBN 9788186778258.

So many Books have been published on the Community by experts. What reliable source are you talking of? That Page is just a matrimonial column. KensplanetTC 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have not read the whole page, the article is titled Teri Mary maa please pay more attention to the article.--Sanfytalk 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to read any article. Books are considered 100 times more reliable than such articles. I don't think after browsing through the books, you have anything to say. KensplanetTC 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

This looks like an excellent discussion to be having on the talk page of the article. Is there anything remaining that would not be solved by:

  • Sanfy: don't move the article again until you have consensus to do so on the talk page.
  • Kensplanet: stop calling Sanfy's edits vandalism.

--barneca (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We had repeatedly warned the User not to vandalize and move pages. Still he seems to repeat the same things for which he was blocked. His Intention was vandalism. This time with the help of some silly newspaper. From day 1, he has been behind the Page.[11] I suggest strict punishment for Sanfy. Sanfy has been here for 5 months wih 7000+ Edits. KensplanetTC 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a difference between edit warring in a content dispute, and vandalism, and calling someone's good faith (incorrect, IMHO, but good faith nonetheless) opinion on what the article name should be "vandalism" is actively making things worse. So is saying you don't even have to look at his article or talk to him. It's very simple; now that it is clear to Sanfy that his move is disputed, he will need to get consensus for the move on the talk page before moving it again, or be blocked for disruptive editing. If he tries to discuss it and consensus is against him, he's either out of luck, or he can go to WP:DR. If he tries to discuss it and people won't do so, then he can go to WP:DR to get more outside intervention. Unless he moves it again, this is not an AIV or ANI matter. --barneca (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Subversion attempt re-write[edit]

As people will recall, there was a concerted attempt to secretly undermine the processes of Wikipedia by a pressure group, details here. There appears to be an attempt to re-write the record going on here, justified by statements such as "The conflict was not between CAMERA and Wikipedia, it was between CAMERA and Electronic Infifada(sic)".
As best I know and can tell, there is no justification for the claim that EI was ever involved, other than as a messenger. The members-only Google Groups mailing list was established by a member of staff of CAMERA. The e-mails implicated at least one long-standing Wikipedia editor (who had nothing to do with EI either). PRtalk 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How does this require administrative intervention? neuro(talk) 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I perhaps started this round of editing with my edit here. My interest in this issue is more to do with its involvement with Wikipedia than with I/P, so I had previously done extensive reading on the conflict. My reason for making the edits was to correct what I perceived as several inaccuracies in the original version:
  • As PR states, the conflict was between CAMERA and Wikipedia, not CAMERA and EI, as EI was only the messenger (indeed, Harpers also carried the emails)
  • In the original version, it sounded as if the issue was a dispute about POV. If you read the details of the affair, the reason for those editor's suspension was for refusing to answer questions about the email campaign, and for the attempt to recruit editors to push POV, a clear violation of WP:MEAT
  • Half of the discussion of this issue consists of links to clearly biased sources such as Honest Reporting. I have not touched these, as I am always loath to remove material from articles, but I do believe that the version of the article after my original edits was already tilted in favour of CAMERA's POV
  • While my original edits have now been reverted a few times, the article itself has been drifting in the opposite direction: the fascinating links to the Wikipedia discussions which led to the censure of editors have now been removed from the article, leaving it more biased than when I made my first edit.
I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know what can be done to address this situation, but I believe that this article is being progressively pushed towards the CAMERA POV, and away from the reliable sources which document this issue, including the IHT and also the primary sources of the Wikipedia pages which document the errant editors' behaviour. cojoco (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this noticeboard is not for settling disputes about the content of articles, so I'll just ask one question: What do you want administrators to do in this situation?  Sandstein  19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
When I was barred for a month, then two months, then one month, the excuse was that I'd been inserting POV and (presumably) trying to damage articles (no evidence ever presented, I'd not been doing so). See here for the idiotic lengths that this was subsequently taken.
So I'm informing administrators that some in our number are attempting a much bigger version of what was falsely claimed to justify my blockings. There is an attempt to white-wash an organisation that tried to subvert our work. Despite the conclusion of various RSNs and other discussions, "evidence" from this organisation (known for the same faults as David Irving, fabrication and hatred) is still being pushed in articles because of its utility to POV-pushers. I'm sure administrators will know what to do. PRtalk 08:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I see PR handwaving, but PR - what is the PROBLEM that you are bringing here. As best I can read it, is EI now really attempting a mass POV push? Is that what you're saying? ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't think it's a problem to deflect attention from subversion of the encyclopaedia, and instead point the finger of blame at those who helped us protect it, then of course I must bow to your superior understanding of these affairs. PRtalk 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
YOu're being an ass. I specifically asked you :What is the problem you're reporting? You haven't answered taht. An answer would be 'IE, after accusing CAMERA of organizing off-wiki to alter our content toward their POV, IE is itself doing that, here are diffs: diff1, diff2, diff3. ' You haven't done that, but that's the gist of what I understand from what you've said above. I have asked you, rather bluntly but without malice, to explain. Your reply is hostile. I'm asking you to be clear about what problem you see. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian who was exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes Irving seriously as an academic, a historian, or even a responsible human being. Comparing a pro-Israel advocacy group to this racist is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. This has been explained to PalestineRemembered multiple times.[12][13] I ask that PalestineRemembered not repeat this false analogy again. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good candidate for mediation. I looked at the edit history, which shows something of a slow-motion edit war. But there's not much convergence. --John Nagle (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CoreEpic and chronic, persistent personal attacks[edit]

CoreEpic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account, with attention being entirely focussed on the Family Foundation School article. User is also confirmed as editing under 167.230.38.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and a sockpuppet account Cicatriz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Despite many warnings [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26], two blocks [27] [28], and being confirmed as using multiple accounts to edit (though apparently not enough to be considered a sock puppetmaster) [29], the user makes regular use of personal attacks against other editors, (e.g. baseless "vandal"/"vandalism"/"vandalizing" accusations against other editors [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], baseless "bias" accusations against other editors [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41], in addition to other ad-hominem attacks [42] [43] [44] [45] [46].

I humbly submit that this user has no respect for the no personal attacks policy, and therefore request that a strong message be sent to this user, by blocking him from editing for at least 72 hours. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid, verifiable information is by definition vandalism, and I have accused no individual user of bias, however if one reads the discussions in which I participated, there were clear examples of bias. A spade's a spade even if it doesn't like being one. Moreover, I have never had a sock puppet account and I never will, there was a dispute filed against me and it was dismissed because cicatriz is NOT a sockpuppet account. As far as 167.230.38.115, that is my IP address and I forgot to log in once. This was all discussed on the failed sockpuppetry accusation.CoreEpic (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Possible Featured Article issue[edit]

In two days (UTC), the article 4chan is set to go on the Main Page, and that has already prompted a couple threads at same planning to give the article merry hell as a result at /b/. Already there's a couple users (an IP and Raul654 (talk · contribs)) calling for a preemptive prot of the article when it hits the main page, but we're not talking a semi - we're talking a full-prot (the link Raul references in his post 404s; likely because admins there have been playing whac-a-mole with invasion threads, according to my sources).

For obvious reasons (hint: SIHULM) I'm very concerned that we may be opening to a can of worms here. Now, notwithstanding the fact it's a FA due to be featured in ~38 hours, should we really preemptively prot this article and keep it that way while it's on the Main Page due to the obvious fact vandals would orbit it relentlessly while MP'd? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should. If you don't mind my asking, why in the name of all that is good and holy was this chosen as TFA? Doesn't Raul keep a list of FAs never to be displayed on the Main Page? Shouldn't this be on it? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Support full protection Personally I don't see that we should disrupt our usual practices by choosing this article for TFA, but if we are, then full protection is the only possible way to get the article through the day. Unfortunately, offering a sub-page for editors to propose changes and having a few admins on hand will only end in tears. Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone on WR managed to capture this archive of the forum thread from before it got canned. Reading through it a bit (I feel dirty now), there appears to have been an effort to register accounts yesterday specifically in order that they become autoconfirmed by the time that the article is on the main page. Full protection is going to be necessary. Zetawoof(ζ) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That was me - I tried to comment on the /b/ thread (so sue me) and found it to be closed, I figured it'd be gone soon. Giggy (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It's rather heartening that 4chan doesn't want their article featured because they don't want "newfags" after the page hits the front, and are talking about DDoS'ing themselves in retaliation... talk about ironic. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Support full protection and hoist the jib. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we have plenty of featured articles out there and if one has to be fully protected to be on the main page then it shouldn't be on the main page at all. Semi protection perhaps, but if this really is going to be the main page article it shouldn't be fully protected - what kind of message does that send out to new contributors? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That we aren't mentally retarded? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
We are mentally retarded for letting it go on the MP in the first place :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
full protection (and does that include move protection?) seriously, it would only be policy wonkery and frankly stupidity not to fully protect the article for the period that it's on the frontpage - it's not like we are discussing an off-chance of problems, we *know* what's going to happen. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, we know so it shouldn't be on there in the first place. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The page is (unsurprisingly) already move protected. Zetawoof(ζ) 12:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Fullprot and suggest a quick check of Raul's brain--what were you thinking, man? ;) //roux   12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Support (we did the same for Israel when it was on the main page), and trout Raul. Sceptre (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Infinitely easier if it just didn't go on the main page in the first place - the problem thus corrects itself. ➨ ЯEDVERS a reasonably good buy 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
So we allow random trolling sites to dictate the contents of our front page? Sorry, but that's not the sort of bending over I favor. Full protection is appropriate in this case, IMO. — Coren (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
So we're allowing random trolling sites to dictate changes in our protection policy instead? ➨ ЯEDVERS a reasonably good buy 12:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Full Prot indeed, but that was a crazy idea to start with to be honest... -- lucasbfr talk 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support prot—the internet has no fury like 4chan, and it's clear they will try and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (or just for the lulz). We know what's coming, we have an easy solution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support nailing it down - It will end up fully protected anyway! --Chasingsol(talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed my mind. Support nailing it down and 20 articles on either side of it... the collateral damage is going to be obscene. To be honest, not only do we need to ignore all rules in regards to protecting the featured article, but I think we should reconsider this being featured at all. --Chasingsol(talk) 13:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • suggest semi protect intialy if only to flush out sleeper accounts.Geni 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection. We also need to impress upon some of the more militant admins that unprotecting this particular TFA is a very bad idea; some admins relentlessly unprotect TFAs regardless of vandalism, simply because "we don't protect front page articles". In this case, we do, and I really wonder what possessed Raul to choose this article as a candidate. Not all featured articles make it to the main page; this one should have been one of them. Horologium (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support semi to start, with full latitutde for any admin to raise. I found this out last night, and I raised it with some other users. From talking to some friends who go on 4chan, I've figured out that there is no way to avoid a massive attack from /b/. Also, why the hell was this chosen before January 10. I suggest that people in the appropriate IRC channels be extra vigilant about marking down sleeper socks for this. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 13:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Do note that 4chan threads naturally disappear after becoming sufficiently old. Since /b/ moves so fast, a thread can disappear after a mere 5 or so minutes without posts. Also, if a thread gets long enough, bumps no longer work, so it will automatically die in a few minutes. If you need to reference 4chan threads, I would recommend something like WebCitation. 74.233.202.165 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protect and block on sight it can always be upgraded later. Just get a few admins that know their memes and have them block without warning if they get added to the article. If we had a CU on as well I would think the problem would go away rather quickly. /b/ has huge numbers, but those willing to rack up edits to get autoconfirmed it only a tiny subset (how tiny, we shall find out). BJTalk 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Full Prot of 4chan article (see below in "Let Em"), and I strongly urge everyone to watchlist every blue link on the main page while this article is TFA. When they find they can't edit TFA, they will browse the other articles linked from the main page. Oh, and make sure the featured image is protected too, as it sometimes is not properly copied/protected. Oh, the "lulz" that could arise from that oversight... :( ArakunemTalk 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A couple of very relevant quotes from above, QFE'd:
Support nailing it down - It will end up fully protected anyway! - Absolutely true. Semi prot will last an hour at best.
The collateral damage is going to be obscene. - Again, nail on the head.
We know what's coming, we have an easy solution. - Common sense here. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and protection is used to prevent damage to the article. I know we don't protect TFA as a rule, so my last QFE is:
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ArakunemTalk 15:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection and SHAME on you people for complaining about the article being on the front page. Come on. There better not be a list of FA's that never go on the front page because we are too squeamish to put them up. I know that isn't censorship (I'm been 'round and 'round about that), it's just silly. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Raul has said that Jenna Jameson will never be TFA. Why I don't know. -MBK004 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • About Jenna - I've never absolutely ruled out featuring her on the main page. I've been careful to point out that I'll avoid featuring her for now, but I reserve the right to revisit the decision in the future. Oh, and as for why, I would have thought it was obvious - to avoid inciting a moral panic. Raul654 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • that was "moral" with an "m"??? You're talking about Jenna Jameson here...the "m" is not a specialty there. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection -MBK004 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose auto fp. Seriously, I think you've all gone silly. Semi first, then upgrade if needed. Block, block and block. Synergy 17:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not silliness. It's just a huge pain in the ass. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, if it looks like it might rain, I'll still leave the top down. When there's a Hurricane Warning though, you gotta put it in the garage. ArakunemTalk 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We're putting 4chan on the front page? Well, that'll be a good day to take off from logging in; even if we *do* full-protect that, they'll just spill over and trash everything else, and I'll just get depressed over the fact that someone let the lunatics out of the asylum. Semiprotect and block the asshats, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection - although I'm glad that people are not backing down from having this as TFA, there's no need to leave the doors wide open and allow a bunch of raving nutters in. I know that anyone should be able to edit WP, but there's a time when pragmatism must come above idealism. Saves us time and effort playing 'whack-a-fool' with the vandals. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protectionJuliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection, and I suggest someone Semi's Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 14, 2009 as soon as possible. D.M.N. (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done. It was just trolling and nonsense, anyways. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection or removal from main page: We should probably set ClueBot to 'angry' mode for all articles, too, to prevent collateral damage. (I can't wait for FlaggedRevs) Dendodge TalkContribs 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Full-protect and a good swift kick to Raul: what about 4chan is worth undergoing the inevitable nightmare that will ensue from putting this on the main page?—Kww(talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that we should save it for April 1? :) Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • April 1 is already taken. :P Giggy (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full-protect - 4chan-style vandalism happening at various places as a sort of pre-strike, I suppose, and if it isn't bad enough already I can't imagine what it will be like when that article hits the front page. neuro(talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection if it's considered necessary, though I would personally have been tempted to keep it semi-protected but be a lot more free with short-term full protection during the day if a real attack does materialise. I'd certainly strongly oppose swapping this off the front page, it's a well-written and balanced article that does a great job of showing off Wikipedia's professional coverage of non-mainstream and very modern topics. Removing it out of fear of reprisals sets a seriously disturbing precedent. ~ mazca t|c 19:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose preemptive FP. If it comes to that, then so be it, but your fears are unfounded. Besides, a lot of us are both Wikipedians and 4chan regulars. There's no reason we can't handle this like we normally do. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"handle this like we normally do..." Kicking and screaming and pointing fingers at each other? *grin* I do support Full protecting the article for the length of time it's TFA, and mercilessly blocking any IP's trying to strike up the /b/and on various other articles, with longer blocks for IP's in /b style vandalism SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Four IPs vandalized my talk page, and one vandalized Giggy (talk · contribs) (Giggy nominated 4chan at FAC). I'm unaware if the IPs who vandalized my talk have been blocked, or if they can be blocked through the 15th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandalised Giggy? :| (as opposed to his pages) :D Orderinchaos 05:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As a semi-related question: is there a persistent archive of TFAR discussions? I'm having trouble finding this one. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No (it would be time consuming to maintain one). Also, not all scheduling is done via WP:TFA/R; it is used for five community requests at a time. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support semi, run up to full if necessary From what I know about 4chan, it's more than likely that we'll have sleepers--semi-protection would be a good way to catch them. If it gets too hairy, run it up to full. Blueboy96 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support full protection per IAR. With all the sleeper accounts that will be used, vandalism will be intense. Xclamation point 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Full Protect. After reading threads like this, I can't see how the page cannot be fully protected within a 48 hour window of its display on the main page (12 before and after), plus an immediate desysop of any admin who vandalise the page during that time (as they may be compromised in one way or another). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pick another article Far better choices could have been made. And since when do we auto FP the TFA? Let it get beaten up like all the other TFAs. If our policy is not to prot the TFA, let's follow it. RlevseTalk 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is, Rvlese, that /b/ itself (a section of 4chan) is planning either to DDoS the page, post pornography links on it, or goatse it with a table (my guess). There's massive vandalism planned as it sits; keeping it unprotected is just inviting disaster. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't expect any kind of real organization that we saw with the Scientology raids. A few threads maybe but none of the offsite work. A DDoS attack would be very unlikely (a real one that is, they may try to do mass image scraping). BJTalk 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is /b/. I don't expect organization from them, I expect determination from those who are after brownie points or mindless following the shepherd from whose who revere JA/G. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If that's the concern, THEN PICK ANOTHER ARTICLE. RlevseTalk 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to agree, Rlevse, it's only dodging the issue - eventually it will be mainpaged and this thread will appear once more. The question here essentially is, should we FP 4chan now or later? -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does it ever have to be on the front page? Not every featured article is the FA OTD. --B (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Rlevse on this one - picking this article was an all around bad idea. (Assuming, though, that there's a zero chance of that happening, I support full protection.) --B (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've already said that once in this thread, but I'm happy to associate myself with B and Rlevse again: it shouldn't've been picked for the main page. ➨ ЯEDVERS a reasonably good buy 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It should never appear on the main page, IMO. Now that news got out about this, I'd recommend full protection for the next few days and I definitely recommend against going ahead with putting it on the main page. There are plenty of other articles that deserve their day in the sun. Enigmamsg 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Deindenting) - I knew when I selected it that this could provoke a controversy. (I was hoping it wouldn't) I'm open to the possibility of changing the article, if there's a consensus here that we cannot handle it. However, as a principle, I don't think Wikipedia should be censored; that this article should be eligible to be on the main page, just like any other FA. Also, I think rescheduling it because of the potential for vandalism to Wikipedia sets an awfully bad precedent.

As for protection - speaking as the one who wrote that policy - the policy is normative, and this is anything but a normal situation. I think, for the whole day it's up, it should at least be semi-protected (as it has been for months), if not fully protected. Raul654 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's pretty strong agreement here that it should be fully protected. Semi-protection could be tried to start off with until it becomes apparant it will be insufficient. Regarding censorship, let me ask a hypothetical if I may. If child pornography or some of its related articles were to ever become featured, would you use them on the main page? What about something profane like fuck or with explicit photos like penis? I think there is a line somewhere that has to be drawn for what can be eligible to appear as a featured article. No, Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates. --B (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not big on answering these hypothetical questions because realistically, very few people are willing to go to the effort to get them up to FA status, so discussions end up generating much angst over something extremely unlikely to happen. But I'll reluctantly answer yours. If someone got them up to FA status, yes, I'd feature penis with an explicit photo; yes, I'd feature Fuck (good luck finding a relevant picture); child pornography - I'm not sure. That's a tough one. Certainly not with any picture that could be reasonably construed as child pornography. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, this may have already been suggested, but just do not make it a TFA. It is definitely not worth the trouble, discussion, inevitable drama, et cetera that this will bring. We stand to lose nothing by not making it a TFA (or at least a shit ton less than we stand to lose by making it the TFA). John Reaves 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not featuring it wouldn't be censorship. The article would still be just as accessible as it was before. John Reaves 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Leave it unprotected If this was a poor choice for a featured article, then it will become evident, and then maybe better choices will be made in the future. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that's interesting. A sort of punitive interpretation of WP:NOPRO? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There's an element of that, but it more has to do with whether wikipedia has the courage to stand by its own principles. Protection of pages is supposed to be reactive, not proactive. We are constantly admonished that it is our responsibility as editors to be vigilent. As WP:NOPRO implies, featured articles should adhere to the same protection rules as any other articles. If the article is already semi-protected, the rules say that's fine, it can stay that way. But if it's unprotected now, it should stay unprotected until (or if) vandals strike. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's a fun suggestion; we can still have it on the main page, but put it up a day early or late (might be too late for early at this point). A /b/ raid can get thrown by something unexpected happening. At worst, delay featuring it for a week. /b/'s attention span isn't such that raiders will wait. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Guess again, Mendaliv. Once they read this and this is enacted, the threads at /b/ will just pop up again a week later and it'll be *easier* for them to create accounts to bypass semi-pro. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please PLEASE do not full protect it - for the very selfish reason that I'd rather like to keep it in a state that doesn't suck, and I'm not an admin, and I really don't want to waste my time (and yours) with editprotected requests. I wouldn't be opposed to picking another article. Giggy (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Delay to an unspecified date to be decided amongst the FA crew; failing that, full-prot on whatever day it gets. Do NOT deny mainpage. I did not state my opinion before, wanting to see what people thought about it. Having read the views and thinking a little bit about my own thoughts on the matter, I believe that it may be best to, in-camera and privately, keep the 4chan article's mainpage date up in the air to prevent /b/ from realizing we're gonna MP it (as Mendaliv states above, /b/'s attention span isn't too great, but the moment we put a definitive date the disruption-planning starts up again). if this is unreasonable/unrealistic, then when it is MP'd, whether on 01/14 or another date, full-prot it. But do not prevent it from getting MP'd; it looks like cowing to 4channers. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protect initially, as soon as it goes up, and then switch to full protection once things start to get completely out of hand three or four minutes later. I would also suggest semi-protecting Anonymous (group), Project Chanology, and the other closely-related pages linked from the main article, since that is probably where the /b/nuts will go once they find themselves deflected from the TFA. Pre-emptive protection is a no-brainer here. The CVU will be having a hard enough time keeping up; why make it any more difficult to contend with the ineluctable chaos by ignoring prior warning and keeping the featured article wide open to inevitable attack? I would suggest that a sysop or three create a special heading on the Talk page for suggested improvements and camp out there while the article is embargoed, so that passers-by can still contribute to the article, at least by proxy, and that the protections be set to expire the moment the article leaves the main page. --Dynaflow babble 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We are making mountains from molehills. /b/ is a bunch of trolls and vandals. We don't need to wring our hands about what they might do if we mainpage it. And we don't need to keep it off the main page out of fear that they will do something. That's pathetic. It's a featured article. It got a date from TFAR. It goes on the god-damn main page. End of story. We semi if we need to (Giggy makes a good argument for why it might be good to semi rather than full) and we fully protect it in the obvious eventuality that some channers register accounts just to vandalize. Anything less is cringing in the face of 13 year olds. Don't do it. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose any protection at least initially. For exactly the same reasons as Protonk above. Why the panic? What is the worst that could happen? If and when vandalism occurs, revert, block, ignore; the same as any other article. -- 06:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WP run out of FAs? Seriously, pick something else. The m:dicks are going to run amok; so can this per WP:DENY. Ruin their fun.
    OK, I know this will go ahead, so I'll watch the shit hit the fan tomorrow. Someone keep count of the sleepers flushed out; bonus points for any admin sleepers found. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose preemptive full protection - Come one, if we treat this any other than all the other FAs, then we are making ourselves look weaker than we are. It's today's FA, there will be a bunch of admins on it and they will surely be able to upgrade protection if and when necessary. Is there really any need to protect it when nothing has happened if it is possible to do so later once something happens? SoWhy 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Deal with it like any other FA -- unprotected initially, semiprotected if necessary, block sleepers agressively (no warnings) if semi-protection doesn't seem to work. Full protection shouldn't be on for more than a few minutes to sort things out. Kusma (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inital Semi Protection Semi protection will allow us to see if it really is going to be the vandal storm they are threating, or if its just all talk. Generally threats to have an organized vandal attempt aren't quite as bad as they seem, and if nesseccary we can always bump the article up to full protection. After all they can't break anything (except maybe our credability). --Nn123645 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let 'em[edit]

Semiprotect is fine, but don't full protect unless it becomes necessary. Let /b show us exactly what they are: either they'll blow it off and snark about what a big deal we made; or they'll show up and vandalize the article… and it'll go right back to normal in a couple days. Either way, they'll have a laugh and be childish about it, and Wikipedia will keep going on as normal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of Wikipedia is to prevent future problems. How would your suggestion do that? It seems more like it is taunting 4chan. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I would think it counterintuitive, given that /b/ tends to be nutless and following JA/G or doing something just to have a laugh at someone else's expense. I heavily doubt the article will go thru the day unscathed, even by FA standards. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all rather similar to the "what shall we do?" fretting in connection with Colbert and his occasional wikipedia pranks. The answer on those occasions, as it should be now, is to do nothing until they actually do something. All the anxiety here just plays into their hands, as part of the fun is seeing wikipedia editors scramble like ants. Treat it as you would treat any other article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No, actually, their motivation is to keep 4chan's /b/tard population down, as noted in the thread linked to in the section above. Our running about is a side effect. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 07:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to keep the /b/tard population down, you're wasting your time. People will be jerks. We can't control 4chan, and going into DEFCON 1 is an overreaction. Let them try to troll, let them fail. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 10:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support full protection. While it is uncommon, I believe it's a good idea to ignore common protection practices regarding featured content when there are clear plans for vandalism. If we give in and not feature it, then it would allow vandals to dictate our featured content simply by threatening with vandalism. We don't give in to unfounded legal threats either. This should be no different. _ Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Go through whatever protection cycle we would with any other article, but also apply this to the talk page. When (and it will be when) they hit it from IPs, semi-protect. When they hit it from sleeper accounts (I've already blocked Tripfag (talk · contribs) and I'd recommend reviewing the recent user creation logs to find any other usernames with obvious or obscure /b/ memes that wouldn't otherwise be flagged by the bot, or that other users have missed, and then block them preemptively), then go to full protect.

    Leaving aside the issue of looking like we're scared of them, I would point out that if they can't hit the 4chan article (and let's also apply protection to the talk page if it starts to get vandalized), they'll hit every other article linked from the Main Page, making more work for us. I would also recommend reporting any abuse that's reportable to the relevant ISP or school. They can be "anonymous" all they want over there, but I somehow doubt they'd be so (ahem) bold when their IPs get recorded for everyone to see, and if they are there are quite a few sysadmins who would be interested in knowing about it.

    I will also say that I strongly oppose changing the article. In theory, every article here can be a featured article, and if we send a message that an editor's hard work on an article will not be eligible for the highest recognition we offer (featuring on the Main Page), we will deter a lot of necessary improvements. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Treat as a normal article. I supported full protection above, but on further rumination, I think changing our policy on TFA proactively, flies in the face of WP:DENY, to say nothing of "You can edit this page". I think its a given that the article will be brutalized if unprotected, and sleeper-vandalized while semi-protected, but its also fair to say that there will be many extra eyes on the main page for this, and it will be dealt with more rapidly than normal. Changing the FA to another article, or indeed changing one of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia based on "the if's" is not what we're about here. Proceed as normal, react, RBI, have lunch, protect based on established policy. ArakunemTalk 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't do anything just yet Simple let the usual vandalism hit and IF the article gets to be a mess, lock it down. There will be more than enough eyes on the article tomorrow anyway to revert vandalism that might occur. In other words ignore what MIGHT happen and treat things as business as usual. We've got enough admin support here that can take care of whatever vandalism may occur. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Honeypot (computing). Let's make sure we have a few Checkusers available for plowing the sock farms and picking off the IPs and open proxies that appear. Let them burn their resources trying to attack this article. We have the upper hand. We can semi or protect if the situation gets out of hand. I recommend short periods of protection to give the sysops and CUs a chance to block whatever accounts have been found, then unprotect and trap a new batch. Jehochman Talk 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The main page turnover is about 6 hours away, so it's time to make a decision. Having read this thread through, I've decided to go ahead with the 4chan article as scheduled. Right now, the article is semi-protected from edits and full-protected from page moves, which is the same level of protection it has had since February. Per Giggy's request, I think that is sufficient for starting purposes. I'm not worried about sleeper accounts, because in order to edit a semi-protected article, they have to be 4 days old, and I scheduled the article less than 2 days ago - not enough time for them to mature. So the rules of the day should be: (1) Revert vandalism when you see it and (2) Block the offenders (3) If there's an unusually large amount of vandalism, increase the protection level. (4) Feel free to protect any other high-profile related articles. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone else support a zero-tolerance policy on these? Namely, block after first offense? J.delanoygabsadds 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Jehochman Talk 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. If they want to be unblocked after it is no longer featured, we can deal with it them. Chances are, a 4chan user wouldn't waste enough effort, so we can figure out who should be around or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I would if it's clear that the editor is not just saving test edits, but is here to troll or whatever they're here for. Also, if the article needs to be fully protected, I would recommend doing so for just a short while at a time, then reduce to semi- and see how it goes. – wodup – 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Side comment: My fear is that 4chan will find a random page, that likelyhood is only one or two admins are watching and will snap for it.... I'd urge admins to keep an extra eye on WP:AIV and [[WP:RFPP] tomorrow. D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
<Engineer>Buildin' a Sentry.</Engineer> (Goes to turtle on 4chan) -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do too (I could swear you scheduled it earlier than that, but whatever). Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely what we really need, then, is tonnes of people checking Special:RecentChanges? Because vandalism to articles found by random can often have little to no active editors watching them. Sometimes I've came across blatant vandalism on such articles that has been months old. We need people scouring over Recentchanges, I think. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but use short blocks (>31 hrs) since they will likely be hopping off the ip anyways. –xeno (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I sent my user talk history to RFCU/IP to kill off any OPs and sleepers that may be in this batch of bleating wethers. There's wisdom in providing channers an administrator to pester - it gives their IPs up for complaints to their ISPs. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats a perfect plan. What a brilliant way to flush them out. Nice one--Jac16888Talk 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fuck 4chan. Fuck 'em right in the ear. Anything they do gets reverted within seconds. All they're doing is making our job easier. HalfShadow 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose any protection: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, it doesn't look very good to have the main page (or to clarify "the featured article on the main page", for those of you who require an extra explanation) protected from editing. There's obviously enough people interested in this to be watching for vandals 2mora. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some user adding pictures of Mootle on the talkpage[edit]

User:Kjootle (and later User:93.97.201.77 who admitted as User:Kjootle) is putting up pictures of 4chan's founder on the article's talkpage (please see history) which I reverted it both, stating that it is not the place to put those pictures and the article is about 4chan and not its founder. Can any users here guard the talkpage from this user and probably delete those redundant pictures plese? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will, but she seems to be taking heavy offense to the additions being characterized as vandalism. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem. There already is an image of moot in the article, this user is merely suggesting other images he/she sees as better. Besides calling you stupid, the user seems to be doing everything right. Am I missing something? -kotra (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block/ban of FT2[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveBishonen-FT2 but probably not worth transcluding now since ongoing discussion is rightly at the RFC page per WP:DR. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Policy[edit]

Several times in which I have looked upon this page, I have seen several complains about various bots, all operating within our editing policy, but none operating within our bot policy. That is, that bot may not be operated unless they are approved.

Several times I have seen that these bot cases have been dismissed, and the bot is allowed to continue operation, even though it has not been approved.

If we are just going to let bot who are not approved operate anyway, why don't we change the policy page to reflect this. Or, we could follow the policy as it's written out, and block bot which are not approved. They may meet policy in regards to the edits, but bots, as far as I've read, are also approved in regards to their technical status.

But as I was saying, why have a policy which states something, if we aren't going to enforce it?— dαlus Contribs 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This (AN/I) isn't strictly the correct place for your thread, but anyway, we didn't start writing this encyclopedia with a whole slew of policies in place, instead, policy as we see it today grew around the encyclopedia, to try and make things easier for our editors, so things like our manual of style was created so articles were written in the same way. We're not writing an encyclopedia where everything has to be done according to rules and regulations or our material is useless, we're simply writing an encyclopedia, period. The various bots you're complaining about don't damage the project but they do help improve it in various ways, so there's no good reason for a strict adherence to policy. We're fairly easy going here, if something damages our content, it gets blocked, if it improves our content, we ignore it. We might even get round to writing a policy to expressly permit something, but writing the encyclopedia is the priority, not writing policy to facilitate writing the encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That isn't exactly an argument in regards to this thread, or maybe it is, if you look at it in regards to the fact that the Bot Approval Group was created for created to prevent disruption before it started. It doesn't exactly have anything to do with writing the encyclopedia. Most bots have to do with the maintaining the encyclopedia, at least in regards to the small things that not all users like to take up their time with, such as date linking, template dating, etc. Your argument in this matter, to say things in a simple matter, is directed at policies as a whole, instead of this specific policy regarding bots.
The fact is is that the Bot Approval Group was created for a reason, and if we just let every matter fall into AN/I before the bot is approved, what is the point of their existance then? Bots, at least by policy, are supposed to be approved before they are let loose on the wikipedia. So far what happens, if they are not approved, is nothing. As I said: Why have a policy if you're not going to enforce it?— dαlus Contribs 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you brought specific cases to the Bot Approval Group's attention? Canis Lupus 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't, I will do next time.— dαlus Contribs 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit-war at Anarchism[edit]

Resolved: Appropriate action taken. neuro(talk) 02:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That old reliable, Anarchism has flared up again in recent weeks. There is a content dispute which has been discussed in an RfC on the talkpage over the last two days, and at the same time a group of editors have been reverting one editor who has repeatedly restored the disputed material. If an uninvolved admin could assess this report, I'd appreciate it. Input in the RfC from interested editors welcomed also. Muchas gracias, Skomorokh 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your taking the time, I appreciate it. Regards, Skomorokh 01:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Odd that these anarchists seem to find it difficult to follow a few simple rules. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Who knew? Guy (Help!) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 steps down from ArbCom[edit]

ArbCom has issued a statement on FT2's departure, which may be found here.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, good call though. All the best to FT2. neuro(talk) 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block/ban of Martinphi[edit]

I am indefinitely blocking/banning User:Martinphi. After a notification on WP:AE about a pseudo-outing, or in the words of WJBScribe, giving out the description of the genie and his last known whereabouts after his escape from the bottle, I looked at Martinphi's contributions and have found his primary - and nearly sole contribution to Wikipedia is furthering his personal conflict with ScienceApologist

Martinphi and ScienceApologist have what might be charitably described as the most dysfunctional working relationship on Wikipedia. It is so dysfunctional, that the disruption they cause eachother spreads like a virus, infect the articles, their fellow editors, and editors-as-administrators who attempt to intervene. I am bloody well tired of it - so should we all be.

I'm going to try cutting the Gordian knot here - what Martinphi did may or may not be acceptable by the letter and even the spirit of the personal information policy. However, on face it is on its own a violation of acceptable Wikipedia norms. In addition, MartinPhi's behavior is now essentially to treat Wikipedia as a place to do social violence unto Science Apologist, a conflict that is essentially personal - instead of working on improving the information resource. To describe his recent actions as disruptive is a simplistic summary of the sad end of a problem that has been festering as long as I can remember.

This action should not be taken as an endorsement of any of the antisocial behaviors ScienceApologist has undertaken - and I couldn't give a damn about the content philosophies involved. I am however, dealing with what has been presented to me for now, if more is presented, more may be done.

Martinphi has abused the privilege of editing here. In my capacity as an administrator, on behalf of the community, which I hope will endorse this action, I am revoking that privilege.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, I endorse this indefinite block. While Marginphi may have been a valid contributor in the past, although limited to a very specific range of articles, he has engaged in POV-pushing almost exclusively. It should be noted that he has made contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and that his notes there may need to be reviewed in light of the above incident. seicer | talk | contribs 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I support this action, unfortunate as it is. Hopefully this will allow people to move forward, and will calm other editors (particularly SA) that have been baited by this user. Now the baiting will stop, perhaps the lashing back will stop. Verbal chat 16:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Finally.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is relevant to the blocking but it has become clear to me during the course of the Fringe Science arbitration that Martinphi is treating it as a zero-sum game in which he finds himself in opposition to people he describes as "debunkers." While there is certainly a problem with one or two over-zealous editors (ScienceApologist's attempted removal of information on homeopathic use from articles on plants seems to have been particularly ill-conceived) I found Martinphi's characterization of the affair as a battle between two factions unhelpful. If he's to continue editing, he must stop this because it only exacerbates our problems of balance in articles on fringe science. --TS 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Tznkai's action and think that a ban of Martinphi is long overdue. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd decline it as insufficient, but since I am biased, I will not edit the unblock request. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason for blocking is quite clear, here and at WP:AE, and was linked from the notice. Verbal chat 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh he's just gone and outed an editor on his talk page (not linking for obvious reasons). Perhaps his page should be locked now to prevent further abuse. Can an oversighter deal with it? Verbal chat 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Without comment on the situation as a whole, Martin has indicated that this was an error on his part rather than intentional "outing", and has rectified it himself (again, omitting diff for privacy reasons). MastCell Talk 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • <- Agree with MastCell that the "outing" seems to be unintentional. I reviewed Martinphi's recent contributions, and this block seems sound to me; I've gone ahead and declined his unblock request as well. Also of interest is his checkuser  Confirmed sockpuppet Durga's Trident (talk ·