Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584

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

Noticeboard archives


Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon[edit]

Unresolved: Moving back from archive in the hope of getting more input.— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a long term edit war between CarolMooreDC and Drsmoo on article Gilad Atzmon. They have been on various mediations and raised wikiquette alerts and suchlike but it goes on an on, the latest such complaint is at WP:WQA#User:Drsmoo (revised per comments).

I have suggested on the WQA that both editors should be banned from that article for some months and let other editors have a go at it. I think banning both would lead to least rancour between theeditors and hopefully let them both go off and do something more useful instead. Editor User:Malik Shabazz concurs with this view. Drsmoo agrees but CarolMooreDC is not happy with such a ban. Can this be done or is there a better way of dealing with a problem like this please? Dmcq (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact CarolMooreDC now says at the end of that WQA they agree with a voluntary block for two montrhs but wants something stuck in the article. your call. Dmcq (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As Dmcq noted above, I support banning the two editors from the article, either temporarily or permanently. I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. Full disclosure: I've made a handful of small edits to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the article ban, I don't think any changes should be made to the article per any of our wishes before the ban though, or any sections deleted by admins not working on the article. If the other editors working on the page feel that a section should be removed and changed, then they should do that themselves after discussion.
Similarly, earlier this year there was a 6 month lock on the article. Immediately after the article was unlocked, CarolmooreDC proceeded to remove a whole section, and the edit war resumed exactly as it had been. Along with the constant personal attacks against me on noticeboards. With a 2 month ban, it will just be the exact same thing again.
I have no objection to both of us being permanently banned from the article, IPs included, to prevent any sock puppetry. I have confidence that the Wikipedia community will ensure that the article follows guidelines. Drsmoo (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully people will read the whole Wikiquette Alert I initiated to deal with issues with Drsmoo in a WP:Biography of Living Persons which had had an WP:OTRS. It still had some WP:RS, WP:OR and POV problems which I could not address without constant reverts by Drsmoo and constantly being followed everywhere I tried to get neutral opinions with false allegations, among others, that I was trying to turn the article into a "defense of his anti-semitism." An obvious personal attack inferring I am an antisemite. This latest, not perfect, attempt for an NPOV section without WP:OR disproves that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It was your Wikiquette alert that precipitated this. That you decided to completely impose your POV changes, re-lengthening the article you claimed you had shortened (which you shortened only technically, almost sarcastically, and that was about 3-4x longer than the Hipcorite and SlimVirgin edits) despite no one agreeing with them is another of the reasons this is where it is. You haven't waited for a single noticeboard to make a decision, or accepted any of them. I mean you were even working behind the scenes with other editors on your talk page, outside the article talk page, and badmouthing other editors "Also, what to do about Rance? He's been rather sneaky about getting his own writings in there without his name being mentioned (going to fix that now) but not as bad as THF and Drsmoo" Why are you so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Drsmoo, you are bringing up inaccurately described or irrelevant issues from before the 5 month protection period. The only relevant issue from that time is an Admin's advice on April 6 that Drsmoo was being “unnecessarily confrontational” and, after further incidents, on April 9 against “derogatory views" against Atzmon or other editors. Obviously I should have come to Wikietiquette immediately after Drsmoo's first accusation against me once the article was unprotected. I see that Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility may recommend it more quickly than I originally had interpreted. I have learned my lesson. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And I should have reported you for incivility when you began attacking me over a year ago (October 2008) which you have continued until today "your questionable edits which delete sourced material and defend only with POV personal opinions" "pushing your personal POV opinion" and on and on and on for over a year, even when you were censured for editing with "an appalling lack of good faith" you continued attacking me. This is the last time I'm going to trade back and forths with you, period. Please explain why you are so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Will you two please stop bringing your petty bickering to every forum in which your names are mentioned. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I was involved with this article a while back (6 months+?), my involvement originating with a WP:BLPN post. It was obvious then that a number of editors were using the article as a battleground, with persistent attempts to quote the subject's political statements (he's a musician, BTW) out of context, and generally developing a WP:COATRACK. Many of the subject's statements are somewhat inflammatory in this controversial area, but attempts to explain the subject's reasoning were always resisted and sidelined, in an attempt (occasionally explicitly stated) to show that the subject is anti-semitic, rather than merely intensely critical of Israel.

Drsmoo was one of a number of editors pursuing this position, whilst CaroleMooreDC was attempting a more balanced article. Without delving into the ins and outs of the dispute resolution of this interminable issue (who said what to whom), it's clear to me that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia for Drsmoo to be permanently banned from editing the article. At the same time, I'd suggest a two-month voluntary ban for CaroleMoore. I think both can be trusted to use the talk page appropriately, but that remains to be seen. Rd232 talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never once been warned of any bad behavior for any of my edits. Calling for me alone to be permanently banned from editing the article, solely because you disagree with my positions is disturbing; especially so, given that you haven't provided any reasons, and yourself state that my editing position is the same as that of many of the editors who have worked on the article (in fact the consensus.) The article has changed a great deal since you were editing it, and now uses solely quotes from high quality reliable news sources such as the Times of London and The Guardian, and no first person sources. After constant noticeboards, not a single one has found the sources and quotes used to be out of context. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but it's not the case that you have never been warned for bad behaviour. Tedder warned you on 16 October, and I warned you on 12 November; in both cases, for edit warring and potential 3RR on the Atzmon article. RolandR 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"solely because you disagree with my positions"... WP:AGF much? I stated my reasons above. To reiterate: I recall you clearly working towards making the article non-neutral (maximising criticism, often based on quotes without explanatory context; minimising elaboration of the subject's views), and that on occasion you explicitly stated your agenda, in terms of "exposing" the subject's anti-semitism, or some such. Rd232 talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment—it's certainly a problem when an editor makes over 100 non-minor edits to an article (or over 200 in Carol Moore's case) without adding new content, or adding very little new content. Even without an in-depth review of the case, it indicates that perhaps the article is better off without these edits. I support an indefinite article ban for Carol Moore, who has been edit-warring on the article for more than a year, and far longer than Drsmoo. As for Drsmoo, a temporary ban would probably suffice, as we haven't seen what his editing habits on the article would be like had Carol Moore not edited it, therefore I am in favor of giving him an extra chance in the future if he positively contributes to other articles on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think Drsmoo and Carol are equally to blame for treating the article like a WP:BATTLEGROUND and should be treated the same. As far as Drsmoo's contributions to other articles are concerned, 38% of his mainspace edits and 57% of his Talkpage edits are on this article. If not for his interest in Freddy Adu, Drsmoo would be considered a WP:SPA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if what you say is true (Ynhockey), not adding new content is a bizarre criterion for judging an editor's contributions to an article as useless. Rewriting, in an attempt to fix problems and find compromises, is at least as valuable as adding new content. Rd232 talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The fact that Carol feels a post like this is appropriate while this discussion is going on makes me wonder whether she understands the problem with her own behavior. I'm beginning to wonder whether a permanent Wikipedia ban might be more appropriate in her case. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly - that's a ludicrous over-reaction. She's talking about how dispute resolution works or not, in terms of her experience; and trying to do something about it. Rd232 talk 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Factual FYI. Since Malik Shabazz mentioned above that I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. I would just like to point out that he is discussing the Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft page set up by an admin after the article had been locked. And actually, with some help from Malik, Drsmoo and I did come to a "consensus," per this Talk Page section. Unfortunately no one knowledgeable of the issues and willing to opine was a sustained third party to our current talk page discussions on the unprotected article, which aggravated the situation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Per YnHockney, I think a more or less permanent article ban for Carol would be a good idea, and a temporary one for DrSmoo, who should be encouraged to branch out into other articles/subject areas. I think Malik might be being a bit stern: I don't think a WP ban for Carol is necessary yet. Instead, I'd recommend a ban on IP/Muslim/Jewish issues. See how Carol edits away from these controversial issues, and perhaps she will learn to moderate tone and POV, and work more collegially with people who disagree with her edits. IronDuke 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this article is in the topic area of WP:ARBPIA, and thus any uninvolved administrator can impose the requested topic ban unilaterally under Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions after giving a warning about that case. If needed, a WP:AE request can be made to that effect. So extended community discussion about a possible community-imposed ban is not really needed here.  Sandstein  07:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately CarolMooreDC has continued her attacks on her talk page "Drsmoo never got no matter how many times I repeated it." "let others deal with Drsmoo - if such others will do so - because he is FAR more problematic than me." "Drsmoo can't be allowed to rule the article through his habit of inferring antisemitism, constant edit warring and refusal to understand clear points no matter how many times they are made. That's more of problem than my merely being too stupid to figure out how to deal with him sooner." And towards Malik "Frankly calling for my banning from wikipedia for problems in one difficult article where you have your own biases does call into question your Admin NPOV"
The attacks go on and on and on. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I see no personal attacks that merit admin action on her talk page. Tan | 39 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion archived prematurely[edit]

The discussion "Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon" seems to have been archives I believe because of inactivity for a day. There has been no action on it and it hasn't been dismissed for some reason, maybe people avoid it! Could it be reinstated or someone advise what should be done about something like that. I'm not sure what taking it out of the archive and reinstating means, would I just edit the archive to remove it then and just stick it back here again? Thanks Dmcq (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconds before you posted this, I brought the discussion out of archive, in the hopes that other editors will comment. Face-smile.svg — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make a habit of doing that. AN/I has a high churn rate (for good or for ill) and the set archiving process respects that. If a thread hasn't received comment in 24 hours, that is an awfully good indicator that it has A: Been resolved or B: Grown stale. Either of those outcomes means the issue is no longer an "incident" requiring immediate attention. If a thread gets archived, your best response is to seek dispute resolution, not to bring it out of the archive. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that it isn't 24 hours these days, but 18. I think it's been 18 for about six weeks, maybe? (Fuzzy memory for details.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Guess I better get with the times, eh? I'll start a thread about changing it back to 24 if this sort of problem crops up frequently. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Archiving threads more than 2418 hours old is not very convenient for those of us who only check WP:AN/I maybe once every day or two. (My doctor prescribed this because I was exceeding my medically recommended daily allotment of wikidrama.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein above says any administrator can take action according to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions which I presume in this case would be to issue the standard warning. Or otherwise as Protnik seems top imply when this dies with no input it just disappears with no action. I see Drsmoo has already received a warning under it and CarolMooreDC has contributed to the page as an 'uninvolved editor' so presumably both are aware of it.Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't disappear as an issue, just disappears from this page. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

HamburgerRadio's fanclub[edit]

user/talk pages are getting slammed (looks like an ongoing problem, but I just noticed it?), with vandalism spreading to other users' pages who revert the damage or warn/block the vandals. In particular:

I couldn't find an awake checkuser on IRC and I gotta get off-line shortly, so I slapped a 3-hour rangeblock on the two narrowest pools (according to whois) within which the vandalism is occurring: and Others feel free to modify block as needed if there's serious collateral damage, etc. DMacks (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected HamburgerRadio's talk page for 1 week. Hopefully that should keep the vandals off his back for a while. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That's because CheckUsers always do their checks in their sleep :-) MuZemike 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Njirlu again[edit]

Resolved: indeffed and logged at Balkan Blocks Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fresh off a 72-hour block for edit warring at Aromanians, Njirlu (talk · contribs · count) re-added his material to the article. One of the sources he gave didn't verify what he had added, so I removed it with that explanation. This evidently makes me a "rasist". Previously at AN/I, it had been suggested that should he resort to his previous habits of edit warring and personal attacks, a rapid escalation of sanctions be pursued. I suggest a block of no less than a week or a month in this case; this guy is not at all likely to understand the problems with his behavior.--Cúchullain t/c 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Njirlu about this discussion. GiantSnowman 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked indef, he had too many warnings. Secret account 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I just noticed he'd received a month block already. I'll log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Log of blocks and bans.--Cúchullain t/c 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. Looks like a collision - sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


User:Tirronan accused me of being a trouble making, POV spinning editor on my talk page after user:DITWIN GRIM reverted someone else's long standing work on the Napoleonic Wars article and just because I happened to be the last editor to have edited the article at the time I was accused of this so called POV. The work reverted by user:DITWIN GRIM had been on the article for a long time, far before I made my recent contribution to the article. The fact user:Tirronan knew about user:DITWIN GRIM reverting someone else's long standing work and then quickly accused me of creating this so called POV just because I happened to be the last editor to have made an edit to the article makes me believe that user:DITWIN GRIM is a sock of user:Tirronan as user:DITWIN GRIM has a very similar edit history and appears to have reverted someone else's work on the Napoleonic Wars article using user:DITWIN GRIM as a sock account. Bambuway (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I went to lengths and found out who the user was who originally added the so called POV work. It was user:Musse-kloge who added it on the 3rd April 2009 Napoleonic Wars: Difference between revisions. I reinstated user:Musse-kloge's long standing work because it is correct and not POV and no other user has ever taken issue with it before and so I've now added reference to it as well. I suggest it is user:Tirronan who should check facts in future and hold back on the POV instead of I. Bambuway (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External links hit list?[edit]

Within the last hour or so, I noticed that several articles I watch have had external links to and deleted all by the same editor, JonHarder (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Curiously, on one of the articles, Messianic Judaism, he left an edit summary claiming that he was "promoting" the links to "See also" items Jews for Judaism and Outreach Judaism. Since both those links were already in the text of the article, having them linked in the "See also" section as well violates the MOS. Therefore, I deleted the "See also" listings and restored the links. Checking Mr Harder's contributions showed me that he seems to have been systematically eliminating links to these two websites. I reverted all such deletions I could find. One particularly dishonest one is this where the editor claims that he is "Remov[ing] ref that does not provide supporting evidence for statement." Here is the sentence in the article:

One outreach effort in 1996 at Texas A&M resulted in accusations of anti-semitism, stemming from a report in The Texas A&M Battalion that Short had told Jewish students that "Hitler didn't go far enough".

And here is a quotation from the cited webpage.

Tom Short, an itinerant evangelist brought to campus by the A&M Christian Fellowship, told one student that, because she is Jewish, she is going "to burn in Hell." He told another Jewish student that "Hitler did not go far enough."</blockquote.>

So how exactly does that "not provide supporting evidence for the statement"?

Ok, so clearly something fishy is going on. Then I found this: User:JonHarder/todo

I don't know any other way to put it except that this looks like some kind of a hit list. Just look at it, it's a list of websites that apparently Mr. Harder would rather Wikipedia not link to and Wikipedia articles he'd like to substitute for the links. And what websites are on the list? can be replaced with Jews for Judaism may be replaced with Unitarian Universalist Association or Unitarian Universalism can be replaced with World Pantheist Movement can be replaced with Naturalism (philosophy) can be replaced with Yeshiva University can be replaced with Jewish Theological Seminary of America can be replaced with Reconstructionist Rabbinical College can be replaced with Hebrew Union College can be replaced with Internet Infidels can be replaced with American Atheists can be replaced with World Convention of Churches of Christ can be replaced with United Methodist Church

Some of can be replaced with Dordt College

Some of can be replaced with Calvin College

And in a less religious vein: can be replaced with Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum can be replaced with Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden can be replaced with Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention can be replaced with Equality and Human Rights Commission can be replaced with Focus on the Family can be replaced with The Heritage Foundation can be replaced with National Review can be replaced with can be replaced with Chronicles (magazine)

So what's this all about? How exactly does it improve an article to delete a perfectly good external link and replace it with a "See also" wikilink? And where did Mr. Harder get the idea that this is some kind of "promotion"?

Incidentally, Mr. Harder has no problem adding links to (the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online).

None of this looks right. I think Mr. Harder should explain himself here and I think the admins should consider deleting his "to do" page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been a good idea to talk to him first. Perhaps it is his opinion that placement in a "See also" section is more prominent than appearance in the list of ELs, and hence replacing an EL with a "See also" is a "Promotion". We don't know until he explains. Whether he has good reasons or not, this doesn't need admin intervention if he's willing to talk about it--and either persuade you that he's right or be persuaded by you that he isn't--and follow consensus once it has been reached. (With respect to the removal of the reference, that is perplexing. Perhaps he followed the second link to the website and missed that the title was also a link. Or perhaps he is concerned about the source as reliable for a WP:BLP? This also we can't know without hearing from him.) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that we " explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same." The "to do" page doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria of WP:CSD. Even if you convince him that the things he is intended "to do" are not a good idea, the page itself is innocuous, and he's been using it for a long time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Done with judgment, I'm not sure this is not a good idea. If an organization is linked to its Wikipedia article within an article, we do not usually need an external link for its website as well--unless of course the article is about the organization or the site, or one of its branches or affiliates or otherwise particularly useful. However, putting them in see alsos is also generally discouraged if there is already an inline link. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Switching out ELs for seealsos is good in theory; in my opinion, the latter are more prominent. However, I'm wary about the targeting of the user complained about. If there are good reasons for doing so, and there are, then we should engage with this editor more. Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The switches done on the user page are all in line with our external links guidelines and I commend JonHarder for his willingness to engage in external links cleanup. The fact that they are all within one area of interest does raise some red flags, so I would urge JonHarder to take caution when switching out the links and not whitewash links that are being used as references. I would also urge him to broaden his scope, as we need more people who focus on EL cleanup across the board. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Therein the peril of not using inline citation - careless or unaware editors can use ELs instead of references. Mind, I would have thought given the controversial nature of the subject matter that content such as that described above should be inline cited, just to be sure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


I will address the two main areas of concern identified above: removal of a reference and conversion of external to internal links. First, the removal of a reference in Tom Short was a mistake on my part and it is correct to revert it. I must not have been firing on all cylinders at the time and probably clicked on the second link that goes to the site's main page (that second link almost certainly should not be there in the first place) and couldn't figure out how that was supporting anything, and just plain missed that there were two links within the "cite" template. That is the best explanation I can give, it is not an excuse and just another reason why my error rate never quite reaches zero, although I hope I am continually getting better. These types of challenges to my editing actually are helpful reminders about what to look for, things to double-check, and problem areas to avoid.

With respect to converting external links to internal links, I do this on the basis that Wikipedia should give preference and priority to its own content. This is implied with the standard order of appendices: See also, Notes, References, then External links—these give preference to other articles, then verification of the current article, and last and least, content on other websites. Preference for Wikipedia's own content is corroborated by the prohibition of most external links to an organization's main page embedded in the main body of an article (see WP:CITE). I believe an article is improved when a link can be taken out of the "External links" and substituted with the equivalent article in the "See also" section. When that other article is correctly written, the reader can trivially find its associated web page if desired. This has the real affect of giving them more prominence in the article. In most cases I leave it to other editors to remove these links from the "See also" section if they are not appropriate there, knowing that in some cases there might be a valid reason to repeat a link in "See also" that already appears in the article. But as a corollary, I believe that if a link is not appropriate in the "See also" section, then neither should it be in "External links."

I'll close with some comments on the general areas in which I choose to edit. I do a lot of External link cleanup and generally follow a thread of similar problems from one article to the next, adding all those articles to my watchlist to ensure my edits are not causing problems with other editors, and then I hang around some weeks to fix other problems. When I find that a particular external link is spread to several articles, I add that to my to-do list unless the external link is in just a few articles allowing me to fix them immediately. Paradoxically, I came upon the Judaism articles by following up on problems in the secularism-related articles; I have been following problems from one Christianity-related article to the next for a very long time. Recently, I went through many dozens, perhaps hundreds of city articles and very few of these had the entangling kinds of links as the former articles, so there was little need for me to note things to follow up on later; articles related to Mexico tend to have spam, but not links that can be converted to articles; food related articles are only slightly more problematic. What I'm trying to convey is that I edit in a variety of areas, but the religion articles tend to have many more problems that I don't have time to fix immediately, so I make a note to look at them later. One could speculate why identical external links are added to so many more religion articles than to other types. Partially I think it is because they are somewhat of a minefield of anxiety and more experienced editors are loath to step in and try to clean things up. I have been working in that area for some time and have found a formula that has been working well for me, allowing articles to be cleaned up with a minimum of drama from some of the less emotionally mature editors. JonHarder talk 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a well-reasoned and rational response to the concerns listed above. I'll second the commendation: cleaning up any nit-picky section of an article, esp. the ELS and refs, is really tedious, and it seems like you're doing a really good job. Overall, I don't think there's a problem here. Jhfortier (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As a regular participant at WP:ELN, I'd like to thank JonHarder for his efforts against "directory spam" (none of the orgs linked at Orthodox Judaism outreach#External links meet our standards).
Editors that haven't looked over WP:ELNO for a while might want to see the newest addition, #19, "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." The original impetus for this line was the ongoing problem with "[ Random Company] did something..." links in article text, but it also applies to directory spam. Wikipedia is not a directory, even for the thousands of charitable and religious organizations that do something or another related to the subject. A DMOZ (or similar) link might be useful in these instances, but developing the articles to address the major organizations is even better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I really didn't want to have to bring this to ANI, as I am usually loathe to participating in Wikipedia "drama." However, I feel as though this issue must be discussed, and no one else has brought it up.

Pickbothmanlol registered his Wikipedia account earlier this year but was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account on February 13. After this he had a long and accomplished career as a sockpuppeteer (see this SPI and this diff). On November 20, J.delanoy unblocked Pickbothmanlol after a private discussion, assuming good faith in hopes that he would not be disruptive.

Instead, Pickbothmanlol went on a disruptive nomination spree at AfD, nominating mostly articles that were either speedily kept or speedily deleted. He made a bitey MfD nomination of a userspace draft, which was speedily kept. He also made at least a couple AfD nominations without citing valid reasons for deletion, prompting results of "speedy keep." He also nominated Zink Dawg for adminship, only to withhold his support for that candidate just minutes later, resulting in a WP:NOTNOW closure. He filed numerous unsuccessful requests at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU, apparently never reading the rules laid out at those pages. He also created a personalized version of the AfD template and tagged an article with it; the template was deleted after this MfD. The final straw was when he disruptively re-opened a five-year-old VfD discussion, resulting in this ANI discussion and the reinstatement of the indefinite block on November 26 by EyeSerene. The consensus at the discussion, in which I was a participant, was generally that WP:COMPETENCE is required and Pickbothmanlol's behavior is so incompetent and bizarre that is disruptive.

Fast-forward to December 4, just a few days later. DragonflySixtyseven, an administrator, unilaterally unblocked Pickbothmanlol, writing, "based on extensive discussion with the user, and careful analysis of his editing, I conclude that he was not acting maliciously." Note that malice was not the reason for the reinstatement of the indefinite block; it was disruptive incompetence. Note also that DS unblocked unilaterally after multiple admins declined unblock requests and multiple users recommended that Pickbothmanlol come back in a few months (see user's talk page). On December 5, I noticed that Pickbothmanlol had been unblocked and I wrote the following on DS's talk page:

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven. When I saw you'd unblocked Pickbothmanlol, I was shocked. I agree that most of his edits have been in good faith, but frankly they have often displayed pure incompetence and ended up being disruptive. After a lengthy career as a sockmaster, Pickbothmanlol was unblocked as a sign of good faith in November. His bizarre and incompetent edits led to his being blocked again by EyeSerene after this ANI discussion. As you can see from his talk page, his unblock requests were repeatedly declined, and for good reason. Therefore, I ask that you reconsider your decision to unblock this user so soon after he was blocked, especially given the fact that his contributions show that he's back to some of his old ways. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been more than 24 hours since then and DS has not responded, neither on my talk page nor on his, even though he's edited during that time. Meanwhile, Pickbothmanlol has continued to show disruptive incompetence by:

  • Opening a SPI where no socking was occurring.
  • Going on another AfD nomination spree, including numerous cases where the articles were actually speedy deletion candidates.
  • Creating this template using a nonfree image in violation of WP:NFCC#9. When a user removed it, citing that policy, Pickbothmanlol re-added it with the mocking edit summary "wahwahwah". I removed it again and warned him on his talk page.
  • Violating talk page guidelines by using Talk:Netscape Navigator 9 "as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic" (rather than discussing improvements to the article) here.
  • Nominating Netscape Navigator 9 for featured article review here (now-deleted FAR nom here), apparently without bothering to read about FAR's purpose. (For starters, the article he nominated is not featured....)
  • Asking a borderline-incomprehensible question at an RfA here.

Since DS has not provided sufficient reasoning for unblocking Pickbothmanlol against community consensus, and because Pickbothmanlol's behavior since his second good-faith unblock has been disruptively incompetent, I suggest reinstating the user's indefinite block. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Pickbothmanlol, DS, and EyeSerene notified of this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say here except me and Dragon have privately discussed this on IRC. He has given me that one chance of being able to edit and I am grateful for it. Please don't take it away from me again so quickly. -Pickbothmanlol- 03:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to devote to composing a proper reply (and still don't, really). As for PMBL's competence, behavior/misbehavior, etc, I suggest a definite block rather than an indefinite one. Stern is fine, but not harsh: if he does something inappropriate, tell him so explicitly. If he does it again, block him for a week. He needs to not edit unmedicated, is what he needs. DS (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
His previous misbehaviour has been pointed out to him in an explicit terms on previous occasions. The record shows that produces no real improvement. This issue is not about his being medicated or otherwise, it's about his ability to participate constructively. I submit he cannot do so and in the interests of the project his account should be blocked. Crafty (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this looks like a bad unblock. I accept that DS acted in good faith in extending credit to Pickbothmanlol and seeing that he may turn out better, but he's either intentionally disruptive or not competent enough to be a quality editor, see WP:COMPETENCE. Its impossible to decide at this point, but it doesn't really matter. He's made little actual contribution to the project, has been unblocked in good faith multiple times only to engage in problematic behavior each time. Good faith is not a suicide pact, and we are not bound to extended it indefinately; additionally even if he is acting in good faith, if the results of his actions are disruptive to the project at this level, I am not sure it makes much diffference. With regard to DS wishing for an expiring block versus an indefinite one, what's the point?. Is there some magic number of days when this user will suddenly stop doing this behavior? I contend that he's been given ample opportunity to prove himself reformed, and has consistantly not done so. If we want to fix the problem, I would recommend some sort of indefinate topic ban from non-article space, not sure how that would be worded, but Pickbothmanlol is having problems that need to be remediated. --Jayron32 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's give Pickbothmanlol a chance to do some constructive editing. Topic ban from the problem areas for, say, 6 months. Plenty of other areas of Wikipedia to work on and prove that they can be productive. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Unilateral unblocks are almost always wrong, in addition to being rude. I support the reinstatement of the indefinite block until a workable modus vivendi supported by consensus is found, but I suggest that any person who apparently needs medication to edit Wikipedia usefully should not edit Wikipedia at all.  Sandstein  06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's disappointing that DragonflySixtyseven didn't discuss reversing my admin action with me before diving in. I don't intend to reinstate the block, per WP:WHEEL, but fully support someone else doing so. My personal opinion, following an odd email from Pickbothmanlolafter I blocked them, is that the block was sound and they really aren't suited for this editing environment. Wikipedia is not the right place for everyone. EyeSerenetalk 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
When I look at Pickbothmanlol's edits, I see a lot of reasonably constructive edits, mixed in with occasional utter failures of common sense. He's done a lot to remove spam from Wikipedia, for example. But (in addition to the issues reported already) he's also reported a new user to UAA as "disruptive ... looks like a potential vandal", when that user's name didn't violate any existing policy and the "potential vandal"'s sole edit was in fact to add a reference; he's written a bizarre essay that glorifies Willy on Wheels and Grawp; and he's reported a sixth-grade class project to CheckUser instead of to School and University Projects. I admire some of the work that Pickbothmanlol has done, and the fact that he's attempting to get a better name (on that note, I don't understand why his name change to "Blush" was denied).
I hope that some resolution besides indefinitely blocking him can be found. I just don't know how to make someone gain some common sense, which is what he needs in order to help Wikipedia. rspεεr (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Would an admin please review the bizarre essay mentioned above. Per WP:DENY it is totally misguided and needs to be deleted (does it really need an MfD?). Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As long as it remains a user essay, I see no reason to delete it. I also disagree that it glorifies anyone, but maybe that's just my reading at 5:45AM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You can go ahead and delete it, I have no idea where my head was when making that. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse reinstating the block, with apologies to Pickbothmanlol for being the victim of admin misconduct. Two things I really don't like about DS's actions: The unilateral unblock and subsequent inability to respond to criticism because he's "too busy". If you're too busy to properly motivate and defend your contentious admin actions, then don't make them.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but I was surprised to see Pickbothmanlol unblocked as well. At some point you have to stop giving second chances. After 40+ chances, it's probably time to give up. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reblocked: In view of the discussion above, I am reimposing the indefinite block for persistent disruption due to a lack of general editing competence. The block may be lifted after a few months if the user can cogently explain how his condition, medical or otherwise, has changed in such a way that he will no longer make disruptive edits, and if he demonstrates his competence by drafting a new article on his user talk page that meets, or comes close to meeting, WP:GACR.  Sandstein  18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued Incivility by Dapi89[edit]

NOTE: Moved here from AN <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I had earlier filed an incivility report for user Dapi89 [[1]]. No action was taken but a few messages left on his talk page by different administrators.

Since the last incident, in my opinion Dapi89 continues his uncivil behavior. Here are some examples:

1) Accused me of lying [[2]]. I take this accusation seriously. An examination of the posts will reveal that the accusation of lying is without basis.

2) Called a post by me "drivel" [[3]]

3) Wrt post by user Hohum "silly thing to say" and "total nonsense". [[4]]

4) Wrt post by user Hohum "issuing simpleton statements" [[5]]

5) Again called a post by me "Drivel" and "your nonsense responses". [[6]]

I am trying to conduct the discussion with Dapi89 with civility, which is one of the 5 pillars of Wiki. Dapi89 has been banned 3 times before [[7]]. I would appreciate if an admin looked into this.


Steel2009 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been consistently canvassing editors who have previously blocked me. This is incivility. Hand on heart; I'm not responding to any more of this guys baiting. His sole purpose during his few weeks on wikipedia, to which he has not contributed anything, and has had all bar one edit of his reverted, is a testament to his intentions. His claims that he is being reasonable are totally false. Using language to describe my points as "weak" is deliberately provocative. He needs to grow up, and stop trying to build a coalition by seeking out editors all over wikipedia to eliminate someone who he doesn't agree with. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: Steel2009 has been engaged in his own incvility - "absurd" and "silly" are certainly used to describe other peoples contributions. Double standards. [8] as noted previously [9]. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying that everything I do is "baiting", why don't you address the specific issues, such as your accusation that I was lying [[10]]. Can you back up this accusation with specific facts? Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Describing something as 'weak' does not sound like any kind of personal attack. Do you have any diffs to support anything that you have said. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd! Can't this be discussed without involving the noticeboard and without having to rely on abusive language to drive a point across? I gladly offer to mediate between the involved parties. This discussion here is not in favour of the article nor does it calm down the situation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr B, I believe you are well intentioned and respect you. I think there are two issues: 1) The discussion about what should be there in the article Blitzkrieg 2) The tone used by Dapi89 in his interactions. The post here is about the second issue rather than the first. The second issue is about how interactions happen in Wiki generally. However I do not claim that I am always right about everything. As I said, I respect you, and if you believe you can mediate I am willing to accept that. I would like Dapi89 to be civil in his interactions with other editors. It would also be nice if he were to retract the accusation he made about me lying. If you believe I should change my behavior is some manner, I am open to that too. Steel2009 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick request...[edit]

 Done - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

courtesy blanked - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed/reformatted the above talk per guidelines and forwarded the request onto the appropriate mailing list. I hope nobody is against this; feel free to revert my change. (Will explain in more detail shortly.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just for a brief explanation of what I did there. I know it was BOLD removing something from a page such as this but WP:RFO states, the goal is to revert the change but do not attract additional attention. I removed the link that was posted here and renamed the title in hopes that it would not attract attention until it was oversighted. Now that it has been, I can safely indicate my justification without worrying about that diff. Thanks for the report, Adolphus79, but in the future your best way to request oversight is through the means specified at WP:RFO. Regards --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you... I will take to RFO if needed in the future... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Abusive editing by User:Jadams2484[edit]

Jadams2484 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been a disputant in the ongoing dispute surrounding Crucifixion in art, and has been vandalizing my talk page: [11]. User has now made this edit: [12] to my talk page, which I think is beyond the pale. User notified: [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone to consider killing themselves is way over the line. The editor does have an apparent history of some few good edits over a fairly long period of time, so I would be disinclined to an indefinite block, but I think this probably goes beyond just getting a warning. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked for 72 hours; comments like that aren't acceptable. Shell babelfish 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's an outcome that I fully support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding comment removal[edit]

Will someone please censure this admin. When he didn't like what i said and refused to present a logical argument he resorted to abusing me then removed my comments to give himself the last word, even after I acknowledged my error! Clumsy and disgusting. Surprise me now with more abuse and removal of this request for his censure. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, there's nothing censurable about removing someone's comments from your own talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As Sarek said, there's no issue here. By removing your comments, it's been acknowledged that they've been read. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Virtual steve may deserve censure for using that horrible blinking text.
Although in all seriousness, (and admitting ignorance to the specifics of the incident) I'd rather admins didn't remove messages and characterize those messages as prattling. Generally, admins should model the type of behavior they want.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ditto 42 and SarekOfVulcan, chummer. All users are permitted to remove any messages they wish from their talk page, provided they are not active block notifications, unblock requests made during same, and {{SharedIP}}. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Per above. I think VirtualSteve's response was quite understandable in the circumstances as further or no replies from VS would have likely led to more of the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec x3) Agreed with Tznkai. Also, although it's technically allowed and I even used to do it myself, I'm not keen on removing the last comment to a discussion, which gives the appearance to future readers that there was no further response. I'd rather people archive or remove entire discussions rather than select the last response so it looks like they got the last word. I'd like to see that as policy someday. Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. In general, removing a user's response to a section should only be done when you've told that user, in no uncertain terms, to stop posting on your talk page. I did that earlier this year with the (now-banned) LineofWisdom (talk · contribs) after I told him to stop posting; I wouldn't otherwise use it. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC x 5) Do you have any other evidence besides removing your comment from his talk page? There is no problem with removing comments from ones own talk page, per WP:BLANKING. Is this one instance what you want "censure" for? (after EC) I will concede Tznkai's point that the use of the term "prattling" is not model civil behavior, but admins are known to have emotions, and sometimes let something like that slip, especially if they feel hounded over an issue they have responded to. If VS has already said everything he has to say on the issue, it serves little purpose to keep asking him about it. So yeah, he shouldn't have used the term prattling. But a single instance of a term like that is not something that qualifies as admin abuse. --Jayron32 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's also the refusal to engage in a logical discussion and the constant abuse I get from him. Both behaviours should not be tolerated in an admin. The behaviour of User:Kevin (see my talkpage) was similar. I've taken the liberty to remove the resolved tag. Hope that's OK. I consider the issue is not resolved, and to place the tag there before I even have a chance to respond to other users seems a little rude. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your issue? Seriously? Your request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban was literally put a few minutes ago, four days after this drama. You were complaining a few days about Kevin and then again the next day. Three admins tried to work with you, you play game with what you consider to be a proper review (feels like a bit like you are playing this to me), they've all told you to talk to ARBCOM instead and it's taken you up until a little while ago to actually do it? Can't you just wait for their response and focus on that or are you just itching to be completely blocked for disruption? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ricky you appear to make the erroneous assumption that the analyses of the admins involved are correct and mine is incorrect. If this is so then you would have had to look at my history since I joined wikipedia. Given the speed of your posting the other day on this matter, I doubt whether you would have had the time to do so. Please correct me if I am wrong. When I have pointed out why their analyses are incorrect, admins have withdrawn from my case and in one instance, now two it would appear, I have been threatened. Other users above have pointed out why Virtual Steve's behaviour is unacceptable. If you think it is "play game" to ask for logical discussion then I am guilty. The case I have brought here is obviously separate from my arbcom case. This case here on this page is about admins behaving badly. I maintain they should be censured for it. I'd like to see your logical arguments against. Please assume good faith and keep the goals of the project in mind. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The question is not whether or not he should have used the phrasing he did in that edit summary you cited. He probably shouldn't have. The question is if anything should be done about it. We don't go around formally admonishing, censuring, desysopping, whatever, every single time someone makes a minor error in judgement. Yeah, he screwed up. It just doesn't seem like the level of screw up that requires much of a response at this point. If you have evidence that this sort of thing is part of a long-term pattern of behavior on VirtualSteve's part, then there may be something to discuss. But asking for action on a single, isolated thing as minor as this seems vexatious. --Jayron32 05:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that in a situation where a group of admins each separately trying to discuss with you about whether you are or are not in a topic ban, each of whom after dealing with you no longer wants to bother, I fault the one consistent factor rather than assume a massive failure of our admin corps. You have been at this since October, and yet all you're done is complain that everybody who has bothered to assist you should be censured. I feel too involved to do more, but I find these persistent ANI discussion to be bordering on disruption. I guess I'll wait for my turn at the stocks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This problem has been going on for a year now. The topic ban has been reviewed on 11 Dec 2008, 20 Dec 2008, 13 Jan 2009 and again on 9 Mar 2009. Then I was asked to review the ban again despite my noting that I had nothing to add to my previous review. I'm not sure how long we should continue to beat this dead horse. It seems clear to me that Kevin McCready is more interested in vindication than getting the topic ban lifted, otherwise he would have availed himself of the ARBCOM suggestion much earlier. Kevin (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban from further discussions about the topic ban? =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ricky and Jayron you appear not to be grasping the whole picture though I am glad that now there is acknowledgment of Virtual Steve's bad behaviour - I'm sure he'll apologise. Apart from the gratuitous abuse (if I had done it I'm sure I'd be blocked) the issue is admins withdrawing from discussion as soon as their logic is questioned. Kevin and Virtual Steve both had the opportunity here to answer some simple questions. Instead they withdrew and started a campaign of abuse. Kevin, it is plainly ridiculous to entertain the thought that I am interested in "vindication" rather than having the ban for edit warring removed. All I am interested in is someone applying logic to the situation. Instead I get abuse. Not a good look. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You ask someone about whether you are in a topic ban. The admins say they will do it and later renege and tell you to go to ARBCOM. Instead of doing that, you spend days doing nothing but badgering them and posting reports on ANI. Show me the pattern of abuse or I'm honestly blocking you right now for disruption. I've had enough of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. You admit that admins have reneged. Where I come from reneging on your word is a very serious matter. Evidence for the following is all available on my talkpage.

The simple test which admin Kevin said he would apply was whether or not my record since the ban for edit warring showed improvement. He then asked, paradoxically, whether I wanted my earlier history to be reviewed. I responded that what was important was my behaviour and contributions since the ban. And what do you know, he then purports to examine the lengthy history and, more amazingly, says he will only examine my contributions since March 2009, not my contributions since the ban was enacted, thus contradicting the terms he and I agreed to and, get this bit, his reason is that "he doesn't want to drag any old issues up" having just justified his decision that way anyway. Then, wonder of wonders, he says there are not enough edits to form a view. Funny that. Ignore a whole year's contributions and then say there is not enough evidence. He then claims some of my edits were reverted as POV and when asked to provide a diff comes out swinging and says I'm complaining that he hasn't done a proper review. Too right he hasn't.

Now Ricky, are you going to seriously tell me that Admin Kevin has conducted a proper review or are you going to abuse, threaten me and attempt to cower me? Would you review someone's contributions, ignore a whole year of them, and then claim there weren't enough to form an opinion? Kevin McCready (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I warned him and I'm done with this. He's been at it with everybody since October and going back further. He's the one on restrictions, not anybody else. A simple "go to ARBCOM" doesn't take three ANI reports and a week of time (Kevin's reason was fine with me and he doesn't deserve this kind of berating). Feel free to unblock him if it affects his ARBCOM proceeding in any way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user blanking his Talk Page[edit]

I know editors can blank their talk page as they wish, but User:DisneyRah, who was blocked for copyright violations (he received three separate warnings, the last of which was a final warning, and was blocked after the fourth violation) has blanked her Talk Page. The only reason I didn't include her Talk Page in the block is because the Talk Page is needed in case she wants to appeal it. Is blanking under these circumstances permissable? If not, what should be the response? Should I restore the block notice and protect her page? Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Users are not permitted to remove active block notices, so yes, restore the block notice. Do not protect the page yet. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I made a similar mistake once before regarding when a blocked user is or isn't allowed to remove the block notice. Apparantly, WP:BLANKING says nothing about removing a block notice while a block is in place. It just doesn't allow the removal of an unblock request while a block is in place. Upon reflection, I think the difference makes sense. Singularity42 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • When you're blocked, you can only use your talk page to appeal the block. Not to carry on conversations or do anything else. If other warnings are blanked, we consider them read. Someone who blanks a block message, clearly didn't get the message. - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to agree with MGM here. The spirit of policies like WP:BLANKING is that they apply to editors in good standing. An editor who is blocked is being asked to not edit Wikipedia at all. The courtesy of allowing them to edit their talk page while blocked is to allow them to appeal or discuss their current block. Activity which is unrelated to direct appeals or discussions of the current block should not take place regardless of what specifically is "allowed" or not by WP:BLANKING. If the user is being generally disruptive, by removing block notices while blocked, they should be discouraged from doing so. When their block expires, they return to "good standing" and can do whatever they want. But there is no compelling reason to allow a blocked user to obfuscate the reasons for their own block, or to continue to be generally disruptive. The user should be asked to either contest the block via the proper channels, or wait until it expires. Any other behavior is not tolerable. --Jayron32 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Then find consensus to amend WP:BLANKING. Users are currently allowed to remove block notices from their talk page. They're blocked, they want the notice removed, who cares. It's evidence they understand they are blocked. Tan | 39 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter at all whether a blocked user removes block notices or anything else except for declined unblock requests from his page. This is best ignored.  Sandstein  19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing a block notice from one's own Talk Page does not fall within the spirit of Good Faith. Removing a record of one's behavior makes it more difficult for new visitors to the page to see that record, and form an accurate picture of the editor's standing. This is precisely what happened when User:JohnFromPinckney gave a copyright violation warning to DisneyRah, and later indicated that he didn't know it was her third. Moreover, the block page provides blocked editors with editing privileges over their own Talk Page as an option one can check or uncheck, saying:

Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked (disable only for users known to abuse own talk page)

DisneyRah's blanking clearly falls under the definition of abuse, not only in light of her bad faith blanking, but these abusive edits as well: [14][15]. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not counter to WP:BLANKING, best to just ignore it. It should be noted that the abusive edits might not have occurred had the bear not been poked and the page allowed to stay blank. –xenotalk 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Just ignore it, because it doesn't matter if it is blanked or not, he's still blocked either way. Prodego talk 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight Ounce Kitten[edit]

Resolved: All accounts blocked

Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight Ounce Kitten (talk · contribs) has created a series of doppelgänger accounts, including 3ight 0unce Kitten (talk · contribs), 8 Oz Kitty (talk · contribs), Ate Ounce Kat (talk · contribs), Ate Oz Kat (talk · contribs) and 8 Oz Cat (talk · contribs), none of whom have made any edits outside adding {{doppelganger}} tags. The main account had a tag falsely claiming to be a doppelgänger account of me! Their edits are rather dubious, including an edit war on Ghoul, a flurry of speedy and AFD nominations (one of which, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynden Christian Schools, looks like it's on the verge of a snowball keep), and a gibberish sandbox at User:Eight Ounce Kitten/weeee. This user is clearly troublesome, but I don't think anything is particularly blockworthy except for falsely claiming to be an alternate account of mine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation *is* a blockable offense, and for that, I'm gonna send these ones out to pasture. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record, the accounts (of which there were many) were all sockpuppets of Pickbothmanlol (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), confirmed by checkuser. We've hardblocked the underlying IP range for a bit to stop him. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of rollback function by User:Legolas2186[edit]

Resolved: Rollback revoked by Tiptoety. — Oli OR Pyfan! 08:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 has an ongoing history of using the rollback feature – only to be used to revert blatant vandalism – to revert good-faith edits, which is unacceptable behavior. When I left a message on his talk page, he responded with a rather nasty/rude comment accusing me of being a sockpuppet, which he has for some reason done since I joined here. Some recent examples of this inappropriate behavior:

  • 12:07, 7 December 2009 — reverts an IP's good-faith addition of a new paragraph to the article and a minor wording change
  • 06:13, 7 December 2009 — not a necessary removal, though an explanation would definitely have been needed as this was not blatant vandalism
  • 05:09, 7 December 2009 — again, needs an explanation as this is not vandalism
  • 05:09, 7 December 2009 — judging from the rollback above the previous one, he seems to be using the feature in a content dispute, a big no-no
  • 06:24, 5 December 2009 — reverts genre change and improper addition of hangon tag; not vandalism. This was the edit I warned him about.

This user does not seem to understand what the rollback feature is meant to be used for, and noting that he was blocked in July for a 3RR violation on Chillin (Wale song) and just two months ago, he was nearly blocked (instead agreed to 1RR for a month) for again violating the rule on Celebration (Madonna album). This user is too aggressive with rollback and has a history of edit warring, which is why I believe his rollback privileges should be revoked. Chase wc91 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll leave a message on his talk page. I'm inclined to remove the tool, but I would like to have him/her contribute to the discussion first. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    (ec) I would have to agree with Chase, especially with the third diff. That is not even content removal (as the warning he gave the user suggested) but copyediting. — Oli OR Pyfan! 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. Diffs like: this, this, this or this (maybe not on that last one) seem like appropriate uses of rollback or reasonable errors. However, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this are not. Sorry for the forest of diffs, but making a claim about use/abuse of rollback requires an abundance of examples. I want to stress that misuse of rollback is a big problem, but that the absence of an edit summary does not mean that communication is absent. If those talk pages were well attended or the editors on the other side of the equation were particularly uncommunicative or reticent, there might be some cause for us not to take the tool away. Factors may exacerbate the problem, such as edit wars using rollback (I only went through the user's contributions which were rollback edits, I didn't look at the page histories for other edits). One last concern. Wikipedia's collection of music articles are both updated by and under constant assault from IP editors. Unlike Tikhonov regularization or Total derivative, these articles are high profile and can be the subject of benign edits which are nevertheless unhelpful or innacurate (changing names, genre-trolling, speculation). Maintaining the quality of these articles is an especially thankless job because the Brahmans of wikipedia look down on music/pop-culture articles (contra Clovis I, where expansion and maintenance is uniformly treated as "increasing human knowledge"). So lets be cautious. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC with two entries below) I am generally in agreement with Protonk on this one. None of the edits seems like outright abuse of the tool (such as using it to gain the upper hand in a rapid edit war). Probably a few less-than-ideal uses, but functionally, since he removed edits that probably should have been removed anyways, whether he did it via "two-click rollback" the function formerly known as "undo" or "one-click rollback" is mostly pedantic. Should he have left edit summaries or talk page notes explaining his action? Probably. Is it worth instantly removing the tool, or would a simple reminder to leave some explanation on reverts of good-faith edits, regardless of how many clicks he used to roll it back? The latter seems more appropriate. (after EC) And then again, whatever... Looks like action has already been taken. Easy come, easy go. --Jayron32 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I get your point, but regardless of communication or not, Legolas rollbacked edits that were not vandalism and in one recent incident, used it in an edit war. This completely goes against what the function is for. Legolas is a good-faith editor for the most part and he definitely takes care of many entertainment/music articles. However, Twinkle's rollback tools seem better suited for him at this point. We should not reward users like him with privileges like this, and until he can learn to revert in better faith and better differentiate between vandalism and good-faith edits, he does not need the rollback tool. Chase wc91 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and rollback is easy come easy go I have revoked the tool. Should he prove that he understands how to appropriately use the tool in a few months I would be more than happy to re-grant him the flag. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A few points. 1. The sooner we get the hell away from the misconception that tools are rewards, the better off we will be. 2. Rollback is easy-come, easy-go, but my lesson from my last rollback incident was that removing the tool tends to piss people off. 3. I hate to invoke the A Few Good Men argument, but most non-RCP rollbacks/reverts exist in this nether region between vandalism and content editing. We have to respect that. This is largely moot as Tiptoety has removed the tool. I hope it resolves itself more neatly than other times. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Legolas was found to have misused rollback in a dispute that was brought to 3RR in October, as noted above, and he already apologized for this usage on 3 October. An apology is good but a change in behavior is even better. In spite of my lengthy dialog (two months ago) with this editor regarding the definition of vandalism and proper usage of rollback, it seems there was no change in his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's moot anyway. Tiptoety removed the tool and I have no intention of reversing (or suggesting we reverse) that action. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard?[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked 3 months, invited to email OTRS. –xenotalk 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it I am in the correct location for discussing burning issues with the administrators of this site? Well, assuming that is so, I would like to inform you that it is my intention to commence legal proceedings against yourselves for failing to keep the reputations of several of my clients intact, by permitting libellous edits to their biographical articles. I do not wish to disclose the exact sum of compensation that is being sought, nor at this stage do I wish to publically reveal any form of list of my clients. Suffice to say I would like to continue this exchange via email. I would be grateful if you could respond by providing a suitable contact email address should we wish to arrive at some form of settlement over this issue.


Mr L Phillips QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know who at legal we should send this too, such as Mike Godwin?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
We have a legal section now? And it's just an IP troll... Wow, they can SPELL. If it was in any way true, why not simply e-mail Jimbo Wales directly? The admins are volunteers, they don't have any liability unless they themselves added stuff. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I've invited the user to email who will forward it to Mr. Godwin if appropriate. –xenotalk 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What I meant to suggest, but wasn't sure exactly where to send them too. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Block the IP. WP:NLT. Ks0stm (TCG) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Already done. –xenotalk 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is almost certainly a fake post. The Bar Council directory shows only six QCs with the surname Phillips: David Phillips, Mark Phillips, Richard Phillips, Rory Phillips, S.J. Phillips, and Stephen Phillips. None is a defamation specialist and it is very unlikely in the English legal system that a client seeking to correct damage to their reputation would be directly represented by a barrister. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That is more than likely the case here, that it is a troll and fake post. But he did just ask during his unblock request for pointers to the legal department email so it could be "discussed" in private. And the info was kindly provided to him by Xeno. Now it's up to them, lol.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sam, by your own reasoning, is it not more likely that they would be represented by a solicitor, and that therefore you would naturally not find the writer's name in a directory of barristers? Sizzle Flambé (/) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
A solicitor who is a QC? They would still have to be registered as a barrister, one would think. Anyway, this is obviously simply an IP troll. Orderinchaos 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
IP troll — quite possibly. But on whether (non-barrister) solicitors can be QCs, your information is over a decade out-of-date. Please read Queen's Counsel#Modern reforms. Sizzle Flambé (/) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right about legitimate legal concerns. See Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat for future situations.--Chaser (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IP range blocked[edit]

Hi all. Due to some pretty egregious socking, I've softblocked per checkuser, for two weeks. Disruption started up immediately the previous softblock expired, so back on it went. Keep a lookout for potential collateral damage (there should be little or none) and ping me if anything comes up. Thanks! - Alison 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections reminder: last week of voting[edit]

This is a short note to remind all interested editors that the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee is still open for voting. The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 (next Monday) at 23:59 UTC.

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). A list of votes is kept at the real-time voting log, and a separate list of voters is maintained on an on-wiki log. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage.

There are twenty-candidates standing in the election, from whom nine arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions please on the use of multiple wiki-ids at the same time?[edit]

Resolved: Explicitly identified alternate accounts, being used in compliance with the alternate account policy. Nothing to see here and this is not the right venue to debate the meta issue on whether multiple accounts should be allowed. –xenotalk 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I encountered today what I regard as a disturbing pattern of edits, from a contributor who makes use of multiple wiki-ids. Most of the edits by the contributer behind User:Boleyn, User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3, uses these three wiki-ids alternately, mainly, or perhaps entirely, to manage the wikipedia's disambiguation pages. I described my concerns in detail here.

Basically, it seems to me that their pattern of using multiple wiki-ids is both counter to our policies, obfuscates responsibility for their edits, and could easily be interpreted as a pattern of bad faith.

In this example the person behind these edits made some edits that eroded the usefulness of the disambiguation page, using User:Boleyn3. Then a few days later they made a speedy deletion nomination of the damaged disambiguation page from User:Boleyn2.

I can see that the person behind these multiple wiki-ids has justified the use of multiple ids because their watchlist grew too long for a single wiki-id.

But surely, if this were a valid justification for using multiple wiki-ids, the person requesting this exemption from our policies should make sure the supplementary wiki-ids are used solely for reading articles, and monitoring changes.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

if one chooses to use this method to keep multiple watchlists, I think the tendency to also use them to edit or comment on the pages seen on that watchlist would be very great, whether or not one realized it at the time. Given the names, I cannot see that any harm is done at all. If one used an less obviously related name, yes, that would not be a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Geo Swan, it's reasonable for you to raise this question, because this situation is not covered by Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts, and of course any covert use of multiple accounts (or of undeclared edits while not logged in) is a serious abuse of Wikipedia's policies. However, in this case the account-holder has tried hard to show how the accounts are connected, e.g. "User:Boleyn is the same editor as User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. The sole purpose of having the 3 accounts is to increase my watchlist." Boleyn has 31,542 edits (count), Boleyn2 has 31,045 (count) and Boleyn3 has 15,438 (count) – all predominantly in article space, a vast effort for Wikipedia – and none of these accounts has ever been blocked. I know that a lot of these edits are tweaks to disambiguation pages, but that is a valuable contribution to our readers and reduces the chance that inexperienced contributors will attempt to create articles that already exist. I think you have probably found "the exception that proves the rule" in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like a problem, per WP:ILLEGIT it's only an issue if they're editing the same article with multiple accounts to give the false impression that multiple people are editing it. (For example, create an article with one account, then use a second account to remove a speedy deletion tag, or use 2 accounts in an edit war to avoid 3RR.) There's nothing in the sock policy saying that using multiple accounts to manage watchlists is permitted, but I'd say let it go per WP:IAR. This editor seems to be going out of their way to make it as clear as possible that all of these accounts are the same person (even redirecting user pages). -- Atama 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "Ignore all rules" was every intended to allow sockpuppetry, was it? In my opinion we should make it very clear that editing from multiple accounts is prima facie wrong (i.e. regardless of Mens rea), except for situations explicitly allowed by policy. This principle should not be undermined. On the other hand, I have no problem extending the current policy to allow the Boleyn/2/3 watchlist approach, if the account-holder has explicitly linked the accounts from day one. - Pointillist (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR is meant for anything that makes the wiki better if a policy is ignored. So yes it would fit in this situation. That being said as I mentioned below, the sort of action they are taking is explicitly allowed by policy so its not needed here. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More than "Is there any policy violation here?" the right question is "Is there any harm being done here?". If there isn't, simply let the user keep up with the good work MBelgrano (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your approach shifts the balance of proof from the contributor to the community. The right question is "can any harm be done?". No harm can be done where the accounts are explicitly connected, but the community can't estimate what harm could be done if one person is secretly using multiple accounts. This is one policy that should be stated and interpreted strictly ...if only because we can't spare the admin/arb bandwidth to police borderline cases if there is a large gray area. - Pointillist (talk)

This clearly falls under Maintenance: An editor might use an alternate account to carry out maintenance tasks. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account. -DJSasso (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a storm in a teacup. I think most long term editors and admins have linked accounts for different purposes. If they're used to abuse policy, that would be an entirely different matter, but this is not such a case. Seems this is more the case of an editor wikilawyering an uncontroversial speedy deletion. Orderinchaos 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. To further clarify, when I started editing disambiguation pages about 18 months ago, many of them had big issues and vandalism, partly, I feel, because few people watch these pages. Through the hard work of other editors and myself, I feel that they are in a much better state, but there is still a large amount of vandalism/people adding non-notables, and many editors who, in good faith, make incorrect edits as they are used to editing articles and aren't familiar with the slightly different guidelines on dabs. Having so many dabs on my watchlist has definitely helped maintain these. I feel that I've tried everything possible to make it clear that I am one editor, although of course I sometimes muck up and have a page on my watchlist twice. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry henry[edit]

Resolved: Please enforce POV edits" is not a legitimate use of the incident noticeboard. Orderinchaos 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been subject to an edit war.The majority of editors feel that the handball incident and all the media coverage should be mentioned in the lead.Editors like [[16]],[[17]]keep on reverting edits.I'm not asking for a lead that bashes the character of the player,but at least mentions the incident in the lead as it was a major incident and has affected his career.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor attempting to distort the truth: the lead DID contain mention of the incident, and his "solution" of moving the entire text in the body that covers the incident to the lead, leaving a lacuna in the body, is disingenuous in the extreme. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Distort the truth? I think you've got that the wrong way around.--Kevinharte (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute that the two of you are pursuing across multiple boards and talk pages. You both might like to read WP:CANVASS for some of the reasons why we don't like this. I'd also urge that you cease talking in multiple places and start talking in one, and only one, of the places recommended by dispute resolution. Thanks. Redvers 10:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Isonomia and keeping Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident managable.[edit]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is very hard for editors to follow. It is made far harder by individuals who want to use the talk page to talk about the event, rather than proposing/discussing edits to the article. User:Isonomia is by far the worst offender in this instance. [18], [19], [20], and [21], are all examples of him starting new sections that are either mostly polemics against the editors editing the article or him attempting to discuss the topic, rather than the article. This user was warned for this behavior - by me here. His response [22] to my narrowly tailored warning was to discuss the name of the article.

Blocking this user for expressing his POV would be inapropriate at this stage. I merely ask that someone ban him from creating new sections on this one article talk page - a narrowly tailored remidy that would still allow him to participate in full. If he needed to insert a new talk page section, he could request that another user do so for him on that users talk page - mine, even. The talk page in question, however, is overburdened, and needs help to keep it viable and to prevent edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point, I'm going to get banned anyway just for trying to getting anything near NPOV. I have been complaining for ages about the disgraceful POV pushing on climate articles and the concerted efforts by certain groups of editors to censor these articles, to the extent it is impossible to contribute in any sensible way. There's no doubt that if anyone dares to include anything contrary to these editors POV they will get banned - and no doubt this is what is going to happen - the censorship is now an epidemic! If Wikipedia can't sort out its own house is it any surprise that editors are leaving in droves leaving nothing but these POV pushers.Isonomia (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean that fringe opinions get to be placed alongside mainstream ones to achieve "balance", this is perhaps the most common error made in political or otherwise controversial articles. It seems that you have been waging a 1-man war to rename the article "Climategate", and using blogs and such to support that point of view. This mirrors the birthers' attempts to get questionable material into Obama-related articles on the "evidence" provided by blogs. In short; not gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, not to be to blatently refocus, but I'm not interested in talking about PoV pushing and unreliable sourcing, but merely cluttering up the talk page with sections discussing the topic rather than the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Accusing Wikipedia editors en masse of censorship is a self-fulfilling complaint. Nobody wants to discuss content with editors who are hurling accusations of bad faith at them. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK allows one to revert talk page additions that don't discuss ways to improve the article at hand. We regularly have to do some of that on Talk:P = NP problem where editors (socks?) keep adding unintelligible proofs, e.g. [23]. Pcap ping 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please put me out of my misery. The very first article I read has this quote: "Climategate has become part of our vocabulary after the unauthorised release of emails, documents and code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Suddenly it has become one of the most searched terms on Google [Climategate results from Google] , with over 30 million results since first being coined just over a week ago. You would have to be Tiger Woods to pull more interest than that." [24] I simply cannot reconcile the unequivacable use in the media of the use of Climategate with the POV title that has been given to this article (and there are hundreds of other POVs in climate). To be honest I don't care tuppence for the feelings of the many editors that have allowed this pathetic POV push tocome epidemic in the climate articles. I would prefer to be banned for trying to get Wikipedia to tell the truth than to lend my credibility to articles that attempt to distort the simplest facts, like the name Climategate, or the fact that temperatures are currently cooling, or ... Isonomia (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Temperature does not equal climate. If this isn't evidence we need experienced scientists working on these articles I don't know what is. Also, "Climategate" as a title tells us nothing. It's just another stupid media neoligism, where they append "gate" the end and of some other unrelated word so they have crap to write about. The article on the Monica Lewinsky scandal isn't called "Monicagate", even though the stilly press were calling it that. Hell, even the article on the Watergate scandal is called "Watergate scandal", not just "Watergate". Media buzzwords are silly and not especially encyclopedic. 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)
The problem that anyone who was skeptical of the "science" behind these articles has faced, is that the only sources deemed "reliable" were from the very "scientists" who wrote these emails. How do you fight censorship like that? The only "reliable" sources are climategate "scientists" and anyone else was being actively prevented from publication by these same "scientists". The stupid thing is that despite being told many many times by various people (all of whom got banned eventually for daring to speak up) Wikipedia permitted climate articles to restrict their source to the small climategate community. Now, not only is every climate article reliant on the integrity of this small group, but almost every editor that was willing to correct this censorship has decided that their time was better spent elsewhere. There are almost no editors left on climate who are not part of the "in" (i.e. climategate) crowd - many of whom are admins and will ban anyone like me for speaking out - so how on earth do you bring back a NPOV from a situation like that? Isonomia (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You could start on the article talk page or appropriate dispute resolution forum by making a calm, rational, non-accusatory presentation of the evidence behind your suggestion. On the other hand you dare the community to ban you for calling them names they might just take you up on it. I don't participate in climate change articles and from this little thread I'm already at the end of my patience hearing claims that everyone here is a POV-pushing conspiracy against the WP:TRUTH. I can only imagine how little patience regular article editors have for this. Whether by accepting consensus or getting yourself blocked, you may face the very real possibility that you cannot convince people of your position and that this project runs on consensus informed by reliable sources, not on political arguments. If the quote-unquote scientists (as you call them) have gained the upper hand in the scholarly and academic community, and the serious mainstream press, then Wikipedia will reflect that because as an encyclopedia we are for the most part a compendium of the established view, not the forum to air critiques and conspiracy theories about the establishment. Article titles generally reflect the formal, proper, non-colloquial titles for things, and in the case of events a dry brief title describing the event, rather than informal names however popular. Paradigm shifts don't start on encyclopedias, they end up there after gaining acceptance everywhere else. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yes of course I'm having a rant - after all that time watching the POV push, to finally know it wasn't my own bias but a real conspiracy by this group to "hide the downturn" as they so aptly put it. To answer your point, I would like to spend the time going through all the articles detailing the POV, but without agreeing even very simple things like whether or not the BBC is a credible source (quoting them as saying the climate is currently cooling), I would be wasting my time. And let me be entirely candid, the kind of people who are likely to sceptical - are the how do I put it - selfish 4x4 petrol heads without a social conscience who aren't going to be spending their time here unless they get paid by the Heartland Institute. Anyone who attempts to edit Wikipedia as a sceptic of the so called "consensus" will have an uphill task even if the "other" side acted with good faith - when many are zealots who seem to work 24/7 on these articles, then banning me is the only humane thing to do! Isonomia (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Isonomia, I suggest that you calm down and listen to WD. He's one of our better editors. I completely agree with you regarding the bias in these articles and how it came to exist. But there isn't a chance of changing that overnight. It will take a long time and a lot of patience. Frankly, my experiences at ACORN and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation have led me to believe that even the smallest move toward NPOV, on politically charged articles, takes enormous amounts of work. Rome wasn't built in a day. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll head over there and take a look. Strictly as a content matter it does seem like the mainstream press seems to be having fun calling it "climategate". - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Organized vandalism by at least three users[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHamilton (talkcontribs) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the two unblocked cases, please let us know if vandalism continues specially at WP:AIV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I have to wonder about the notability of the person in question, regardless of the vandalism. (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a PROD tag. (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Stone (Colorado)? (I didn't create it) (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trương Hoàng Phong[edit]


Trương Hoàng Phong (talk · contribs) just performed this move of Yongle Era to Yongle era with a somewhat unconvincing summary. As far as I know the renaming is contrary to naming conventions, but the reason for this report is this set of moves [25] and [26]. They seem to indicate that the user is a sock of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs), who has been blocked. Favonian (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless "Yongle Era" is a proper name (I doubt that it is), "Yongle era" is the correct article name. No comment on the sock accusation, as I know nothing of Yongle the Great.--Atlan (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
He has been continually block evading but this is an old account. "00:09, 11 August 2009 (hist | diff) N User talk:Yongle the Great ‎ (moved User talk:Yongle the Great to User talk:Trương Hoàng Phong over redirect: hgghd)". I'm blocking this account as well. The article has basically no content and I've made it a redirect to Yongle Emperor which does have content on this period. If it ever grows large enough it can have its own article. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Support that. Until this editor shows some signs of responding to concerns, all we can do is WP:RBI and make it unproductive for them to sock. Unfortunately I believe this does mean removing their edits and blocking their socks on sight. EyeSerenetalk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section from talk page[edit]


I object to the removal of this section from the talk page at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

Diff here: [27]

For background, the article page is semiprotected, so IPs cannot contribute to the article. The only way they have a voice is at the talk page. While I note that the complaint is quite short on specificity, I was in the middle of writing a post to request more specifics, in order to engage discussion. I disagree that WP:SOAP applies. It isn’t a rant about GW, it is a comment (albeit general) about the article itself, the very point of the talk page. I suggest a better approach would be to ask the editor to post specifics, and if those are not forthcoming, to collapse the discussion rather than erase it. By removing it, we are providing fodder for the belief that the treatment of this discussion is not even-handed. I want us to be even-handed, this removal does not send a good message.SPhilbrickT 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but where is admin intervention needed? Have you tried discussing the removal with the user who did it? Regards SoWhy 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This page used to say "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" - what happened to that useful bit of information? Agree with SoWhy - I don't see a need for admin intervention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Fair point. I did add a pointer to this discussion on the removing editor’s talk page, I’ll carry on the discussion there and see if it can be resolved there.SPhilbrickT 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)



See the user's talk page for constant warnings against vandalism:User talk:

There user adds precious little to nothing constructive. Here are some random diffs I picked out of his contribs. This

Here is his latest, disrupting the Holocaust article. I hope an admin will finally stop warning and start blocking this IP. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, but in the future please make such reports at WP:AIV for faster action. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request more input regarding Tiger Woods[edit]

I'd like more input here please, particularly in the dispute section. I previously posted to the BLP noticeboard, but that did not get much response.--Chaser (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)