Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive674

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

Noticeboard archives


Marcha Libertadora[edit]

Resolved: Page deleted; suggested page be salted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection HalfShadow 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Hope it is the right place for this issue here) The deleted article Marcha Libertadora was again created here. The "national anthem" is a completely fake, the expression "Marcha Libertadora" stand for a military campaign during the independence wars in south america. I do not know about the source of the video on youtube nor about the sheet music (an organisation/website/book etc called "National anthems of [sic!] World" does not exist, nor i was not able to find a source about an anthem of gran colombia. The article was and is stil recreated in several languages as google translation. I am sure that this is pure vandalism, and User:Marcha Libertadora (!!!) is a sock puppet of User:Achun1111y, who started this vandalism in december. For further question, please have a look her, where this issue was discussed a month ago in the german wikipedia: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Antemister#Marcha Libertadora--Antemister (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagged. HalfShadow 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on topic on probation[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PCPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For a long time now PCPP (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing activity on Falun Gong related articles and any articles that include content related to Falun Gong. He does it with other articles related to the Chinese Communist Party, but Falun Gong appears to be his forte. As for evidence, his edit history is probably the best possible example: most Falun Gong-related edits are disruptive, very few of them are about adding new information, and nearly every single one of them is about degrading or simply deleting information that is unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party. I suggest simply looking at his history.

But the specific "incident" I want to highlight here happened on the List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll. See the history and discussion. The point is this: he is opposed by three editors who find it legitimate to include information about the persecution/genocide against Falun Gong in the article about alleged genocides. A judge ordered an arrest warrant against Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan, leaders of the persecution, and called it a genocide. That is in this article. There was other media, too.

PCPP has already done three reverts on this page within a few hours.

He has been doing this for a long, long time. Please check his edit history on this topic. His primary method is to be aggressive and edit war. When he does discuss things it is never substantial. He throws out a few sentences, sometimes irrelevant, and continues in the same vain. Meanwhile other editors (including myself) present long explanations for their thinking and changes. He ignores it all and just deletes the stuff he doesn't like. Editing the pages becomes extremely tiring.

Here is a long list of his biased editing that I made a long time ago. Since then he has done much of the same. He came within a hair's breadth of being banned a couple of years ago, and has only gotten worse since then. It is my neglect that has allowed this to simmer for so long. I think it is extremely clear that this editor should no longer be involved in anything related to Falun Gong, and I believe the other editors, when they hear of this motion, will be greatly relieved that something is finally happening. I know of at least three other editors who take an interest in the Falun Gong articles that, from what I can tell, are fed up with PCPP's disruptive behaviour.

Falun Gong is one of the articles on probation. PCPP is a longtime disruptive editor who has now just done three reverts against the consensus (two explicit, one implicit) of three other editors for including reliably sourced information. He should simply be banned indefinitely from the pages, and I don't think anyone who edits the articles will disagree.

Comments by other editors

(I take the liberty to simply collect these from different places and present them here, but I hope others take a look and weigh in directly.)

  • [1] PCPP, your edits to this page recently are uniquely disruptive. I cannot but wonder what your intention is; if you desire to see the page contain a level and honest description of events and views, I must inform you that your participation so far is not conducive to this end. Instead, the level of aggression and persistent POV-pushing that you display derails any substantive conservation and leads other editors to turn on you. Prior to your arrival here, we were in the midst of a substantive discussion on how to improve the article, and were in the process of reaching agreements on some changes. You then proceeded to revert these changes without discussion. They were restored and explained, but before the discussion could continue, you then reverted wholesale again. This time you offered minimal discussion in which you made several specious arguments that you failed to substantiate or defend... I similarly do not appreciate that you cannot be taken at your word; I realize now that it is necessary to check your edit summaries against your various difs. You also misrepresent the rationale cited by other editors for their changes. Now, I can assume good faith and believe that these are innocent mistakes, and part of me is inclined to do this. But I am beginning to suspect that there is a certain amount of deliberate disruption and deception here. You may consider taking a step back from these articles and going for a nice long walk. Homunculus (duihua) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • [2] I just saw this after the shock I got in the recent kerfuffle. Completely agree. I actually wish he would just go away. All PCPP does is POV-push, and he's done it for years (looking at the RfC someone compiled a while ago). I will actually stop editing that page if it keeps it up, so you can't say his tactics don't work. —Zujine|talk 19:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • [3] A final note, just to make sure this is not forgotten: I appreciate Silk's positive view of things, but I was monitoring the page before I began editing and commenting, so I saw how it unfolded: PCPP has been absolutely disruptive all the way along. You'll notice the amount of ink other editors have spilled tripping over themselves trying to explain their highly reasonable edits, and the throwaway remarks PCPP makes in response, along with either constant reverts, or what cumulatively amount to reverts. I have been frustrated by this editor, and I can only imagine others have. I know we're not supposed to name names, etc., but this must be pointed out because I don't want a repeat of it. All the changes that he/she resisted have actually been made, they are entirely reasonable, the only difference is that X amount more time was wasted because of his/her stubborn resistance. I won't say more on it for now, but if the problem flares up again I will even more unimpressed. —Zujine|talk 18:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I urge someone to look into the matter and make the appropriate judgement. I will alert PCPP now. --Asdfg12345 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Correct forum would be WP:AE, this is under their sanctions so they must enforce it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

JSOC Edit War[edit]

User Paolau.kalani (talk · contribs) has made several destructive edits to Joint Special Operations Command. He is removing sources, and entering a personal opinion based on one sentence from a report stating that the 75th Ranger Regiment is "believed to be part of JSOC." Two verifiable sources that were already in the article counter that; both of which show that JSOC is comprised of Delta, DEVGRU, and Air Force STS only. This is also confirmed on the 75th Ranger Regiment page, which identifies it as part of United States Army Special Operations Command. Furthermore, the bottom of that page has the chain of command, which shows the the 75th is part of USASOC, but not JSOC. There is no mention of JSOC on that page, because it is not related to the Army chain of command. Paolau.kalani (talk · contribs) is insistently removing sources and inserting his opinion that the 75th is an element of JSOC. The confusion comes in because Rangers often work as part of JSOC task force teams, and Rangers are often deployed as support for JSOC elements-- in which case they are transferred under JSOC command. They are not a regular element of JSOC, though, as the 2 sources and the Wikipedia pages of each clearly state. I have issued several warnings on his User Talk page, and another user issued an edit war warning. After that warning was issued, I stopped reverting edits, but Paolau.kalani (talk · contribs) persisted, as seen here. This user needs to be blocked from editing that specific page. Charlie Tango Bravo 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Actively monitored by admin. I've again invited Paolau.kalani to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Hopefully he does. If not, I'm prepared to block any party that violates 3RR on the article from this point forward.
Note also that Paolau.kalani has sought help on the situation: see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Edit War. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Block request: Angel's flight[edit]

A checkuser has identified user:Angel's flight as editing from IP addresses registered to American System Publications, a company owned by the Lyndon LaRouche movement. This is the same company that user:Leatherstocking, a sock of banned user:Herschelkrustofsky, was editing from in 2009. He edited logged out several times, and the IP addresses resolved to American Systems Publications in Los Angeles. (See Leatherstocking and WP:LTA/HK.)

Angel's flight has been acting like Leatherstocking and Herschelkrustofsky too, pushing exactly the same text and POV on the same articles, as well as working on a new article, Death panels, an issue the LaRouche movement has an interest in. (See several threads on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive670.) In addition to the CU evidence, there is other behavioral evidence, which I can email if necessary. Could an uninvolved admin please block the account for block evasion?   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I too would welcome a block on this user for his actions at Independent Payment Advisory Board as well as Death panel. The account may be linked to other editors such as User:Intermittentgardener which it often backs up and User:Jesanj for the same reason. I made several complaints here previously about User:Intermittentgardener and User:Jesanj has contacted me by email with material that in my opinion was intended to somehow scare me (someone knows who you are but I am trying to protect you). Quite sinister really. Jesanj has also claimed that Action T4 is a death panel, and as I have discovered, this is something the Larouche organization connects to organizations and subjects in the health field such as IPAB and NICE. These are extremists views and I have accused all of thee editors of trying to politicize the encyclopedia content and push POV in recent times. User:Arzel has a similar editing pattern also and may be worth checking out.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. You have made allegations against me several times without presenting any evidence. Please stop.Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if he is sockpuppet or just one of that supporters of LaRouche who work in his companies or affiliated groups. Both can be true. But his edits in Independent Payment Advisory Board like this one are normal content dispute and I don´t see problem to include what notable politicians think about the topic. --Dezidor (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This came up a week or so ago and I saw what had signs of skillful POV pushing that I didn't have the energy to try to document with diffs. Will Beback would know better than I would about whether that's HK's style. Is there a SPI about this current checkuser finding and were more socks found? Angel's Flight and a couple of aligned editors arrived at that article with new accounts but as obvious non-newbies. My view is that actual newbies are expected to take a while getting acclimated and we can accept some pretty bad errors from them, but apparent practitioners of CLEANSTART should be presumed to know what they're doing when they make the new account, so it's appropriate hold them to high standards. (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The POV pushing has been pretty relentless, and as you say skillfully done. In essence, they find a wee bit about something and spin it up into something else. This particular account has been used mostly on the TALK page to back up the unacceptable edits of other editors. Of course they make the same old claim of verifiability and not truth, but even attempts to add material which shows the POV they are pushing to be wrong, some member or other of the cabal working at these articles will come along and delete material. For example this edit which makes it clear that the NHS pays full cost for effective cancer drugs and allows top up by the patients if the price demanded by a pharma company for a drug is deemed to be too high. The counterbalancing material was just deleted because it does not fit the POV of the cabal. At some point WP is about TRUTH and these editors seem intent on hiding it.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I've indef blocked this user as an obvious disruptive sock. Dreadstar 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd like to suggest a CU since there were some other accounts with similar patterns. (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I too think that a checkuser should be done on all the accounts that have edited Death panel and Independent Payment Advisory Board and their respective talk pages since Christmas 2010 to see if they are connected. This is I think when the push (putsch?) began at those articles. Hauskalainen (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's called "fishing", and we won't do that. If we have individual editors for which we can demonstrate sufficient probable cause, a checkuser would be warranted. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with JpGordon, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there has been an abuse of multiple accounts. Hauskalainen's argument looks more like a content dispute to me, no reason for a ban either. (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, its not just content, its about sockuppetry and POV. Puppetry is all about false consensus and that is what I sense is going on and so it seems do others. These editors back up each others edits all the time and on occasions have edited one after the other in quick succession. If one would go 3RR then another steps in and reverts on their behalf. Several are relatively new accounts which have edited only a few accounts. There is a definite cabal at these articles with POV pushing at its core. And as I pointed out above, at least one of these editors had expressed an opinion closely associated with the LaRouche crowd and we know now that Angel's flight was editing from a LaRouche web site that had been used before for puppetry. Taking user account history, editing patterns, edit time patterns and article choice into account, I would say that this would not be a fishing trip..Hauskalainen (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • This block was a little quick, don't you think? I don't see any evidence of POV-pushing presented in the thread above. The entire case was, "This editor edits, in a similar way, from the same IP range as another blocked editor." If an editor is following the rules, stronger evidence should be needed before the account is banned. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The account was blocked for being an obvious sock of a banned user. That user was banned for POV pushing, sock puppetry, and other violations of Wikipedia policies. The account was not simply using the same IP range - he was editing from the same small LaRouche company as previous HK socks. As far as POV pushing, every edit he made was to advance LaRouche views, or to argue against negative material on LaRouche, the same as HK.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree that the account was POV-pushing in the LaRouche article. You haven't provided any evidence that the account was doing so. If the account was following the rules, how can it be blocked because it "might" (with only circumstantial evidence) be the same person? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • What standard do you suggest for blocking socks? Only if they're using the identical IP address and only if they're flagrantly violating other Wikipedia policies? that is not the standard the community has adopted. See, for example WP:DUCK. I note that you have repeatedly asked non-LaRouche accounts to stop editing the topic, yet you seem fine with having someone at a LaRouche HQ doing so. I also note that you frequently join in discussions on WR with the banned editor, who is the senior admin there. While I assume good faith on your part, your involvement with this topic has been decidedly pro-HK. Could you please do us all a favor and ask him to stop sneaking back here and editing under false identities?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • By the way, where is the link to the SPI? I don't see it in your statement above. I just realized that it appears that you haven't actually presented any evidence either that the account is editing from the "small" company you say it is. Where is the actual evidence to support this block? Let's see it. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • A checkuser did the investigation, and found the connection to the company. I don't have permission to reveal the IP in question, but it is definitely registered to American System Publications. Some details can not be disclosed publicly for privacy and other reasons.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
              • If the IP is confidential, then how do you know it? How was this checkuser requested if no request was made at the SPI page? What's going on here? Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                • This checkuser request, as is often the case with those regarding prolific and malicious sockpuppeteers, was made privately, by someone very familiar with this particular miscreant. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • OK, without giving the actual IP, did it match up exactly with the IP used by the banned user in the past, or did it just happen to be in the range used by the same company? If so, then I don't think you can conclusively decide that the accounts are the same. The ArbCom decision banned that specific editor, not the company he/she edited from. Also, after performing the checkuser, did you share the information with any other involved party. If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • There is also behavioral evidence to show it is the same person and not just someone else sitting at a desk in the LaRouche HQ. In the past we have published that type of information. However HK is a clever puppet master (his use of socks dates back to Usenet and precedes Wikipedia), and he has adapted himself to be less identifiable. For that reason I will not publish the behavioral evidence publicly. Most of Cla68's objections seem to be Wikilawyering in defense of his friend. Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in the case of disruptive POV-pushing puppet masters.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                      • No, Will, what I'm seeing here is an editor who was following the rules being blocked as a banned editor on hidden, circumstantial evidence based on "because I said so". Will, did you approach JPGordon privately to conduct a checkuser? If so, were you aware that he was previously involved as an arbitrator related to the LaRouche case? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                        • Cla68, even aside from the plentiful evidence that this is HK, do you really think it's appropriate for a member of the LaRouche movement, sitting at a LaRouche computer, to edit LaRouche-related topics without making any disclosure? Can I remind you again of how many non-LaRouche editors you've asked to stop editing the topic?   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                            • (a) Will did not contact me. Doesn't matter who did, though. (b) "Previously involved" because I voted on a motion of clarification two and a half years after the original case? Don't be silly. But even if I had been involved in the earlier case, that would have made no difference to the intepretation of the actual data, as I provided technical details only, not conclusions. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                              • So, were the IPs identical? If not, then we don't know that they were the same user, do we? Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Cla, any details given publicly will help the person behind the LaRouche accounts. In addition, he attacks people—on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere—that he sees as opposing him. I hope you agree that no one should be subjected to those attacks, and I ask you please not to do anything that might make them worse.
American System Publications in Los Angeles is a tiny LaRouche company. Leatherstocking edited from there while logged out, and he acknowledged it was him. He didn't seem to realize a whois would show it was a LaRouche IP. Another IP from the same company edited logged out not long ago, again revealing a very small range. So this is not a situation where different people are in a large company and might be editing unaware of each other.
In addition to the technical connection, Angel's flight was raising exactly the same points the other accounts had raised, sometimes almost word for word, and was referring to issues discussed only on obscure pages years ago. The more he posted, the more he did it. So it was very obvious to anyone familiar with the accounts that it was the same person. There have been dozens of these accounts over the years, and they distinguish themselves by the language they use, the positions they strike up, and by the very particular interests—very specific tiny points that are of interest to the person behind the accounts.
When you were involved in the Naked short selling situation, you agreed (or even suggested) that any new account that arrived at those articles should be assumed to be a sockpuppet. That is, you agreed the situation was such that the usual AGF could no longer be the default position. The sockpuppetry situation at the LaRouche articles is similar, if not worse. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, the only organization prohibited from editing Wikipedia is the Church of Scientology. If the ArbCom has ruled that American System Publications is similarly not allowed to edit Wikipedia, could someone point out to me where it says that? Otherwise, unless someone confirms that the IP addresses were the same, then there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to support a block of the account as a sock of HK. No one has introduced any other evidence of wrongdoing, be it edit warring or POV editing. Will said earlier that he would be willing to email confidential evidence that he has. Will, please email me that evidence. Otherwise, I'm not seeing sufficient justification for this block. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
HK is a serial puppet master. He has disrupted the project for years and attacked WP editors from his post as WR admin. I've never seen you showing any concern about any of that. Instead, you have asked repeatedly asked non-LaRouche editors to stop editing the topic. You appear to be shilling for HK. Can you explain why you'd hold him to a different standard that Mantanmoreland?   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The person behind the LaRouche accounts was banned by ArbCom, and has continued to sockpuppet ever since. He edits from American System Publications in Los Angeles, a very small LaRouche company. He has edited several times while logged out, which is how the ranges came to be known. I don't know which range Angel's flight edited from, but CU confirmed it was the same company, and it's clear from the logged-out edits that the ranges are tiny.
Can you address the point I raised about Naked short selling? You argued at several of those articles that the various new accounts ought to be treated as socks, even though their IPs resolved to different areas. You argued that it was clear from their posts that they were the same person, or the same small group of people with the same aim and motivation, who repeatedly wanted to add the same material and the same sources, and who therefore for the purposes of WP were one person. But here—even though the IPs resolve to the same company; the company is tiny; it's owned by LaRouche; and the language, arguments, and edits are identical (even restoring each other's exact words)—you're arguing we should assume they're not the same person. What difference are you seeing between the two cases? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
SV, you'll need to give me a diff where I said something like that, otherwise, I don't remember the context involved. Back to this discussion, I have another question for Will. Above, JPGordon states that Will Beback did not contact him privately to request the checkuser. It was Will, however, who opened this thread announcing that he had proof that Angel's Flight was an HK sock, (which proof has yet to be produced, by the way). Will, if you and JPGordon weren't in private communication, then what made you decide to come here and announce the results of this non-public sock investigation, and how were you so sure that the results were conclusive? If the checkuser results, including IP addresses, were privileged information, then they shouldn't have been shared with you, right? Cla68 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Cla, you may have misunderstood. It wasn't checkuser sharing IP information. It was the LaRouche editor who shared it.
Leatherstocking edited logged out in 2009, so his IP range was known. It resolved to American System Publications in Los Angeles, a small LaRouche company, one that HK is linked to. Recently another IP address edited the LaRouche pages logged out again, and revealed another IP range, which also resolved to American System Publications in Los Angeles.
The question then was whether Angel's flight had edited from within those ranges, and the answer, as has been posted here, was yes. Whether it was exactly the same IP isn't known, but there's no need to know that detail. The ranges are tiny, just eight IP addresses in each. That makes it a technical match. Factor in the behavioral and editorial evidence, and it's a match in every sense. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the behavioral evidence hasn't been presented, and Will Beback refused to email it to me. So, no evidence of a editorial or behavioral match has been produced. The thing is, if that IP range belongs to an organization run by LaRouche, your approach is basically to ban anyone that edits from that IP range. As far as I know, the LaRouche organization has not been banned from editing Wikipedia. I would expect most, if not all, editors who edited from that organization to be knowledgeable on LaRouche's platform on various subjects. What I'm seeing here is that anyone who edits from that IP range, and shows an unusual familiarity with LaRouche's platform, gets banned as a sock of HK, even if they are doing their best to follow Wikipedia's rules. As you can see on the LaRouche talk page, Will Beback calls editors who don't take his side in the content debates, "Friends of HK." So, there is evidence of a strong bias by Will Beback to find HK behind every bush, but little evidence has been presented that this is so, at least in this cae. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, you are acting as HK's ally if not his friend. You are discussing this matter with HK on WR. You are taking his sockpuppet's side in this and in editing disputes. You have asked editors who do not take pro-LaRouche sides to stop editing the topic, but you want someone who is sitting in a LaRouche office to be able to edit the topic freely. Excuse me if I don't perceive you as a neutral person in this matter.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Will, you and SV have said that this company where the edits supposedly originated (and no evidence of it has yet been presented) is "small". Could you tell me how many people work there? If you don't know, then how can you be so sure that HK was the person running the account? I can't be sure based on "behavioral" evidence, because you have refused to share your evidence with me. What was the reason for that? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Another question...Will, were you given privileged information from the checkuser? Your opening statement in this thread appears to indicate that you were. If so, it appears that the rationale for sharing this confidential information with you is because you are an admin. If this is the reason, then why are you active in editing the LaRouche articles' content if you are also acting in the capacity of an admin in relation to other editors who are active with that topic? Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, I'm not going to share information on how to detect sock puppets of HK since you are in frequent contact with him on WR and are generally supportive of him and his sockpuppetry. As for checkuser matters, I've been in touch with the audit subcommittee and if they have any further questions they can write back to ask them.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
So, if someone besides HK edits from that organization, and it appears that you have no idea how many people work there, and they display any "behavioral characteristics" of a character which you refuse to share with me, claiming that I'm in cahoots with HK, they get banned. This appears to be the steps involved, please let me know if I have this right:
1. A new editor shows up at Lyndon LaRouche or associated article and disagrees with you on the content or wants to use sources that you don't approve of.
2. You begin insinuating in article talk page and noticeboard discussions that the editor is a "LaRouche" editor and appears to be related to HK
3. You request a private checkuser, the results and details of which are shared with you.
4. You come here and request a block, without presenting any evidence, but say that it is available on demand.
5. You then refuse to share the evidence with some editors, picking and choosing who you share it with.
6. The editor gets banned immediately, without being told clearly why so that they may defend themselves and even if they appeared to be following Wikipedia's policies
7. You then strike or delete all the comments by that editor from article talk pages.
8. You then resume editing the LaRouche articles.
It sounds to me that if anyone else edits from that organization, whether they're HK or not and if they're following our policies, they have little chance of ultimately avoiding an indef block once they disagree with you the first time. Do I have this right? Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@Cla, you have been concerned there was no POV pushing from Angel's flight (Af). I saw some. Here is the LaRouche position something from Executive Intelligence Review (a LaRouche publication): "Obama's so-called health-care reform, modelled as it is on both the Nazi T4 and the British NICE model, is riddled with procedures which will permit the cutting of care, from the comparative effectiveness studies to the Accountable Care Organizations. But the chief measure, as Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag is at pains to stress, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), previously known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), and popularly known as "death panels."[4] Af came to death panel and would support text that overstated things (to LaRouche's benefit). Here's me calling Af's POV out. Af was trying to link the IPAB (and NICE) to the word death panel by overstating-sources & giving undue weight, in my opinion. They took a mini-break then returned by adding back some OK content, but also some content (off-topic and Gratzer) that had already been decided against, fyi. Jesanj (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Jesanj, please don't call something a "LaRouche position" which is discussed more widely by many more participants than just LaRouche. (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting, Angel's flight pointed out that source too. Jesanj (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Blenn Geck legal threats[edit]


The guy has already been indef'd as a sock, but he continues to make legal threats. I ask that an admin take away his talk page privileges. I'm told he's been in contact with arbcom about his situatio, so there's really nothing useful he can do on his talk page. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What account are you talking about? User:Blenn Geck isn't registered... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, it's BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No offense, but what business do you have posting on his talk page? The guy should be blocked, and yes he should not be making legal threats but you are literally trolling his talk page, eliciting these reactions from him. Please cease and desist from stirring more drama up. You should be interaction banned from this user as there is absolutely no productive reason for you to be interacting with them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's now off my watch list. I was trying to see if I could get any truth from the guy, but he won't budge, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
He's threatening you for "outing" him by reposting the IP he accidently associated with his own account. You're pretty much in the clear; I'd suggest disengaging. No one is going to unblock him. For the record, blocks based on WP:NLT are typically reverted without prejudice with the threats are retracted, aren't they? (I know this is a sock block) --King Öomie 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've taken his page off my watch list. He outed himself and is angry over having been caught. The blocking admin advised doing nothing about that "outing" until the user hears back from arbcom. I've seen cases where they did revdel when a guy accidentally outed himself, but that's usually for a user in good standing, which this guy ain't, as he's a sockpuppeteer (previous, indef blocked account is Deliciousgrapefruit). Even if he retracts the legal threats, he'll stay blocked, because the sockmaster is blocked. But you're right that if it were an NLT block, retracting the threat could result in an unblock. Not in this case though. He just needs to be stopped from making further legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I should also point out that it was a different user who discovered the cross-blending of the accounts and their IP address. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nah, he just needs to be ignored. He's blocked already as a sock. Nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You may be right. We'll let an admin decide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course, but beware of the boomerang. This looks like very unnecessary drama to me, and now you're asking an admin to waste their time with it. Good luck. Out.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Admins can stifle the guy or they can leave him be, that's up to them. I just don't like seeing legal threats left standing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
That's bugs for ya! One of the wiki's characters. It's all good natured. I can understand why some may not, but I like it... we're not here to be professional and up tight! Egg Centric 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. You're a good Egg. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) I saw your comments after, but was edit conflicted a full three times while attempting to post (and then while attempting to add (edit conflict), and twice while trying to post this- what the hell is going on up there?) --King Öomie 14:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've run into lots of EC's recently. My screen is also acting weird in the last day or two. They might have made some technical changes in the site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There really is something screwed up. I've seen several pages with no edit buttons as if they were protected, when they weren't, and I was able to edit one by clicking "view source". I wonder whether logged-in users also experienced that. (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
When opening a new edit screen, I'm seeing a light blue panel at the top, which is new, and weird. Wasn't there a comment a few days back about how they were going to implement some changes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


I've blocked the sock account from editing its own talk page. Socks do not need to edit anything anywhere - they can use their primary account for that unless their editing privileges have been revoked. In that case, they definitely should not be editing a sock talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If BlennGeck and Delicious Grapefruit really were different users on the same computer as BG says, that basically announces off-wiki coordination since IIRC they were in the same edit wars. Heh. (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


If a user reveals an IP address by mistake and wishes to undo the error, I generally don't see a problem with removing it. Removal won't slow down admins or checkusers investigating complaints, and it's foreseeable that in rare cases an IP outing could cause problems such as in the case of a whistle-blower outing his or her work IP. However, I propose only removing such edits when the user makes the request and when the user isn't already involved in a sock case. Rklawton (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Do we encourage whistle-blowers to edit articles? I'm admittedly biased on the subject—I have some doubts about the net social utility of whistleblowing—but I would think that the rationale of WP:AUTO would apply with only slightly diminished force. If an individual is too close to the subject to contribute to an article about themselves, presumably they are no more distant from organizations they're closely involved in. We wouldn't allow Barack Obama to edit Barack Obama; wouldn't it be anomalous to allow him to edit Presidency of Barack Obama? Why is it any different? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Generally it's a matter of "use common sense". The whistleblower example for me evokes an image closer to some schoolteacher editing about a scandal at city hall, than about Barack Obama editing wikipedia. Added: I think Rklawton's approach is generally reasonable. (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a hypothetical, not like I think O is going to start editing. The hypos was concededly extreme in facts, but I think the same principle is involved. A schoolteacher probably wouldn't be in a position to blow the whistle on city hall, so let's say a junior DA blows the whistle on his boss (or a judge, perhaps). Wouldn't we have concerns about that? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Your concerns are worthy but off-topic. The issue at hand is accidental IP outing. The issues you've brought up fall under WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:V. Rklawton (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken Ctrl-Alt-Del redirects[edit]

Please move this request to the right place. I need technical help to fix the result of the redirect Ctrl-Alt-Del (actual redirect) getting broken during recent moves (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Ctrl+Alt+Del and [5]). I started fixing all the broken redirects from the WhatLinksHere (see Special:Contributions/84user) but I feel this needs a better solution because there are archived discussions that now point to the wrong article, and I am loathe to edit archives (although I did just once here). Somehow that set of moves needs to be reverted and it looks like only an admin can do this. -84user (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There were only three links left in the mainspace, which just pointed at the webcomic's article. Doesn't fix the issue, but it isn't as high priority now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was more concerned with the links from Wikipedia namespace, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Assessment (fixed), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 8 (an archived debate), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rantings Of Madmen (the same), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and Happiness (another archived debate). Such links are important I feel, and should not be left broken too long. -84user (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unusual merges and redirects by Special:Contributions/[edit]

I'm not sure if this vandalism or not, but some articles on my watchlist are coming up with "unusual redirect" tags undertaken by an IP: Special:Contributions/ He seems to have performed merges and redirects on established articles without any discussion, and I think an admin should take a closer look at his edits. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just something to talk to them about, really. Bold merges can be easily reverted. Their response of swearing at people isn't great, and they've been warned over that. Fences&Windows 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Easily reverted, but the merged content requires {{copied}}s in case it's ever restored. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how legitimate his edits were (although one of them was definitely ill-advised), and I've never performed an article merge but I know there is a specific protocol for these things. I still think it's better for someone familiar with merging procedues to look into these things though and offer any pertinent advice. I see Tbhotch has addressed the matter, although he wasn't exactly thanked by the IP. Betty Logan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC).
I agree with Fences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not my place to undertake admin duties, I haven't been given that mandate by the other editors on Wikipedia. Flagged edits came up on my watchlist so I posted a notification here. The admins can either look into it or ignore it at their own discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Admin duties = delete, block, protect, close discussions. Everyone's "duties" = talking, editing. You don't need an admin to revert a bold merge, you don't need an admin to talk to another user, you don't need an admin to engage in dispute resolution. Don't feel that because you've not got the mop you can't use your experience to advise other editors. Fences&Windows 04:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There was an old proposal at Talk:Secretary#Merge in Management assistant, so that merge had some support. There's something odd going on: compare Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/Cliftongransko. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the huge overlap between those two IP ranges and that editor as well so I asked for a checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cliftongransko. He's doing masses of merges and redirects. Some of them look perfectly legitimate but whenever someone reverts him he tends to just revert them back. What is more worrying is that he's been blanking article talk pages and hiding controversial edits behind inoccuous edit summaries such as "adding references" etc. It's nigh on impossible to keep track of him — editors leave him messages and he just ignores/blanks their comments and moves on to another IP number. An admin has added a couple of user accounts to the checkuser based on the behavioral overlap. This isn't outright vandalism, his edits do usually have a logic but the sheer amount he is undertaking without discussion along with using underhand tactics have lead to a couple of previous blocks within this range: User talk: and User talk: Obviously I can't say hand on heart it is the same guy until the Sock investigation has concluded, but there is a serious trust issue here if he is lying in his edit summaries and deleting discussions form talk pages. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Block review requested[edit]

I have just blocked user Dlabtot for a 3RR violation at Alex Gregory. I feel OK about this, however as a matter of principle I submit any block I have made to an article I am also editing for independent review. Manning (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're in the middle of a content dispute and you blocked your opponent. Bad form. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Normally yes, but there is ample precedent for my actions. This is a fairly clear-cut case of 3RR, and the editor is acting against established consensus, and has failed to present any justification for his contentious viewpoint. Not really a 'content dispute' IMO, it's vexatious editing. Still I listed it AN/I as a matter of principle. Manning (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, it looked like you were heavily involved in the article as well as that edit war and ensuing content dispute. Not a very good block IMO. –MuZemike 02:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll reverse it and take it to 3RR. Thanks for the feedback. Manning (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of 3RR. Since Dlabtot only made three sets of edit, when consecutive ones are merged, it is not possible for there to be a 3RR violation, which requires 4 reverts. That is not to say there was no edit warring, but there is no 3RR violation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I just noticed that myself, hence my original block was in error. So the matter stands as is (with block reversed). I'll refrain from any further admin actions on this article. Manning (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It may have been in error, but it did achieve its purpose - I won't participating at that article any more. You 'win'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the editor in question was actively participating in the related talk page discussion. Blocking them stops them from participating, and that lends another element of unfairness. Rklawton (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently my account has been unblocked, but there is still a block on the IP address I usually use; I had to post this from a different computer. Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted.  7  03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Two things: (1) It's excellent to see you back around again Manning. I was afraid you had left Wikipedia for good a while back. (2) It's probably best to report these kinds of things to WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP in the future, unless there are significant BLP issues in play. NW (Talk) 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to Tokio Hotel?[edit]

Resolved: Edits reverted, admin has eyes on the vandal, nothing more needed to be done. Carry on. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

On rock band Tokio Hotel's wikipedia, a user is posting claiming they did cocaine, had hookers etc and putting up false info and links. This is terrible and needs to be deleted immediately. They are a famous 21 year old rock band and none of this is true! It is this person per history:

17:18, 18 February 2011 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) (33,934 bytes) (Rescuing orphaned refs ("Pop%20Culture%20Madness" from rev 414490317)) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiekaulitz (talkcontribs) 06:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a bot, not a person. That account just adds sources that have been removed, among other things. The account you should be asking about is this one, or Dualblade6 (talk · contribs) for those who don't want to click the link. That accounts edits are both vandalism. Recommend block for Dualblade6. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

THANKS!!!!!! I'm new - first time editing Wikipedia - and it just freaked me out. :P I'm just learning how this thing works. Thanks SOOOOO much Neutralhomer! They are my favorite band and I would hate for such false statments to ruin them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiekaulitz (talkcontribs) 06:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Times have changed indeed. If Wikipedia had existed back in the day, fans would be editing the articles about their favorite bands to add information about the drugs they did and the sex they had, and would have complained bitterly when their edits were reverted for lack of sourcing. Far out, man! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Dualblade6 has been given a Warn4im warning, and an admin is watching his edits, so there really isn't more for the admins to do. Marking resolved. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kool dee and User talk:Yo Yo Vega keeps removing the birth year on the Nadia Dajani page.[edit]

I suspected these users are the same person, as they kept on removing the 1965 on the Nadia Dajani page (check the edit history). This user claims that they are the actor's agent; and they did not want to provide her age, for some strange reason. I wanted to report this to prevent any future edit warring. Tinton5 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Yo Yo Vega (talk · contribs) about this discussion. ALL users should be notified. Regards, GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This article falls within WP:BLP and has no reference at the moment. The only external link given is IMDb, that is not unanimously considered as reliable. olivier (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I can see why they might be pissed off by ageism in the film industry but unfortunately that is not an encyclopaedic consideration. Fainites barleyscribs 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

3rd billing in a 2-year-run sitcom followed by several film appearances, none of which appear to be "significant roles". Send it to AfD, that'll take care of the age reporting if it gets canned. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an option. Other than that, the age disclosure concern is a valid consideration for a living person. According to WP:DOB, it may be acceptable to remove the date of birth (or year in this case) if the subject objects. The encyclopedic nature of this date is arguably limited, and I could not find any decent source giving this date. All websites giving her birth date seem to be copying each other with limited reliability. Keep in mind that IMDb functions partly as a Wiki. olivier (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP strongly supports the removal of unsourced / poorly sourced contested and potentially controversial claims about living people. There are many many instances when a factual age is important and having the incorrect information would lead to damage to a living person/their reputation. (drinking underage, claiming retirement benefits too early, statutory rape). I have removed the date. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Their precise age has nothing to do with the subject's notability (not being a child star) and is just general information, unless it can be sourced reliably I see no reason why it should remain in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unreliable sourced age should be removed - especially when someone objects. I'd also support deleting all but the most basic parts of the article at least until we get get some reliable sources - at this point there are zero. Rklawton (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I found a reliable source, The Associated Press. So I've added it back. Fences&Windows 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I know I've seen a policy or guideline page that specifically states that "This day in history" type newspaper entries are not considered reliable - I'll see if I can track it down. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be strange, based on what evidence? Anyhow, I also sourced some of the other material. We spend so much time arguing about things like birthdays while the bios sit unsourced or people like Rklawton propose blanking the article instead of improving it. Fences&Windows 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to do both at the same time. (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Blanking is an improvement over bad or unsourced information that fails WP:V Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We've found that "this day in history" sections in many newspapers are lifted directly from Wikipedia - vandalism and all. It's to the point where these sources are effectively mirrors. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Bingo. There's no evidence that the content of the columns are vetted - they're essentially spammed across newspapers worldwide. If there's any dispute on a birthdate it should be removed until a definitive source is provided for confirmation. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute[edit]

I have asked for a source at List of current heads of state and government for the inclusion of Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state of Australia. Now, before you say, well of course she is the head of state! She's the Queen, right?, read the discussion on the talk page (which is beginning to go around in circles), or better yet, read the Australian head of state dispute article. Simply put, there is no definitive source for saying that the Queen is the Australian head of state. No statement in the Constitution, no declaration in legislation. The best one can get from legal sources is opinion, needing synthesis, which is original research. There are good sources for describing the Queen as head of state, and the Governor-General as head of state. Official sources, academic sources, community sources. This is a debate within the Australian community with a long history, mostly within the context of the republican debate.

However, that's as may be. I am at the moment concerned with the five pillars points. The statement is unsourced WP:RS and if a source is found for the Queen, then sources are likewise found for the Governor-General WP:NPOV. If editorial opinion or synthesis are used, then it is WP:OR.

I'm trying to work through the problem using wikiprocesses, but encountering difficulty. At this point, I'd like to get some loftier eyes on the situation, rather than edit war over something with possible BLP ramifications. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is more of a content dispute, IMHO. Anyways, Why would one ask for a source, when one has already pre-determined (having admitted as much) that no such source exists. At the article-in-question, one of the editors seems un-willing or un-able to accept that Australia's situation isn't unique. Again, this really doesn't belong at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Why can't you just write that some sources claim that Liz Windsor is Head of State, and others claim that the GG is? This isn't OR, or synthesis. If the list can't handle ambiguities, then the problem is with the list, not the sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the essence of the Australian head of state dispute article. It's a collection of sources and a summary of the situation. When I added a link, GoodDay pulled it out. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't be it's own source, though. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government#cite_note-ERII-0 already said "Queen Elizabeth II is separately and equally monarch of 16 sovereign countries sometimes known collectively as the Commonwealth realms. In each of these countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom (where she predominately resides) she is represented by a governor-general (unhyphenated in Canada as governor general) at national level. In some of these countries, opinion differs as to whether the Queen or governor-general should be designated as head of state; there is no questioning of the Queen's position as sovereign, above the governors-general, however." before the OP's edit the OP's edit, so it wasn't clear why an edit specific to Australia was thought to be required, unless as WP:SOAP. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think ya linked to the wrong edit, DB. Mine wasn't specific to Australia. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. Hopefully corrected now above. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The font size was the critical point. By showing the Governor-General in a smaller size than the Queen, Wikipedia violates WP:NPOV. The sources are equally good for both Queen and Governor-General, and the Australian Governor-General's function goes beyond representing the Queen. I can recommend some of the sources in the Australian head of state dispute article for more and better information, but the guts of it is that she isn't a "deputy monarch" or the Queen's Australian agent. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Again though, Australia's situation isn't unique. Also, Mies' offered & compromise - using 'same size' fonts, if 'Representative' was added to all the commonwealth realm entries. I dropped my stance on 'different size font' & accepted the compromise. But Skyring/Pete refused to join myself & Mies in that agreement (thus here we eventually ended up). GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of completion, I'd like to add that Talk:Elizabeth II does contain a large portion of this discussion as well. Some of it, I believe is in the archives. For the sake of sanity, I'd also like to say that while this is a content dispute, it's been going of since July 2010 and the unwavering tenacity on both sides makes me think that this is the place to get a final solution. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus the big question. Does a country need to say Head of State in its Constitution, in order to have a Head of State? GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course not! But it's an extremely good source when this is the situation. Definitive even. We do have to source our statements, remember, and it's a lot better to use a nation's constitution as the source rather than the CIA Factbook. BTW, I notice that the CIA has also flip-flopped over the years on this precise point. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government's own website[6] says that Dizzy Miss Lizzie is the head of state. What do we know that they don't know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I too am perpexed by Skyring/Pete's stance. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The Australian government has changed its mind repeatedly over the years. See the references here, especially this page from the Commonwealth Government Directory. It's now a gamble as to who says what. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the Governor-General was the head of state, and his replacement Julia Gillard hasn't weighed into the debate yet. When official views are divided, how is Wikipedia to respond? Pick one side or the other? Or stay neutral? --Pete (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Why will you not accept Mies' compromise? It allows for the fonts to be the same & reflect the Australian Constituion's Chapter II, Section 61 - which states the Governor General of Australia, is the Queen's representative. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Does it say that the Queen is the head of state? No. The Governor-General's role in Australia is more than that of the Imperial representative the constitution, unchanged on this point since the days of Queen Victoria, implies. That's the way the empire crumbles. --Pete (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Does the rest of all those commonwealth realm Constitutions say she's Head of State in their countries? Does the USA say the American President is it's HoS? Does the Japanese Constitution say the emperor is its HoS? Heck, the UK itself, doesn't even have a written Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a common misconception. The UK doesn't have a constitution written down in a single document like the US Constitution, but there is plenty of legislation, authoritative works, court decisions etc that together form "the constitution". – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If Head of State is the problem, then there's alot of county entries at that article, which should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Onlookers may wish to examine this (this, this Arbitration case from 2005 and this block log for some background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I am heartily sorry for my behaviour at that time. I trust that the difference is readily apparent to all. Let this sorry example be a lesson to all of us to remain within the bounds of acceptable wikibehaviour. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've read over some of those 'past behaviours' & I'm quite concerned with what's happening at List of current heads of state and government now. Rightly/wrongly, at that article's Rfc, I feel as though I'm being 'bleeped' around by Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


I recommend an administrator check over Skyring/Pete's behaviour concerning the said-article. He seems unwilling to accept 'reliable sources' that aren't agreeable with him. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS-I'm trying to help Skyring/Pete avoid another possible long-term block. But so far, he's resisting my attempts. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think his actions are more at issue here than anything else; he's been carrying out a slow edit war at List of current heads of state and government for some time now and doesn't seem to be showing any signs of letting up any time soon. His talk page behaviour is becoming quite frustrating too; WP:TEND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strongly apply. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Do to reference made to it & an attempt to use it as source at List of current heads of state and government: I'm concerned that the article Australian head of state dispute, might've been created as a vehicle to promote/support its creators PoVs - on Aussie Head of State topic-. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no "might've" about it. My POV is that there is a division within the community over who is regarded as the Australian head of state and the article describes and documents the dispute. I got tired of hunting up sources for one side or the other and figured we should put them all in one place. So far it's come along nicely, with diverse opinions from reliable sources, nicely balanced, solid input from many editors. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't use the 'dispute' article (any article) as a source on other articles. Wikipedia can't be source for itself. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a collection of external sources. It has a gratifyingly full reflist. Directing readers seeking information to an article describing a situation is standard practice, whether it be Olympic Games or World War Two. We don't need to include every source in every article that has a tangential link. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Funny, there's a discussion about that very topic here[7]. Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Not quite the same thing. The dispute exists and is worth documenting - it has continued on for many years, mostly in the context of the republican debate, rising to a head during the 1999 referendum - so it deserves an article of its own, rather than the few paragraph existence in Government of Australia it had for some time. Linking to it provides the readers of a diverse group of articles with the background and a long list of sources which would be awkward to add to each article, along with an explanation. For example the Michael Phelps bio does little more than mention the Olympics - it doesn't directly tell the reader that there is an international sports and athletics contest every four years. Baron Pierre de Coubertin is not mentioned at all. But if the reader clicks on the Olympics wikilink, all that stuff is provided and reliably sourced etc. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe there's anything wrong with the article Australian head of state dispute itself; it is decently sourced and doesn't really promote one position over another. Where the problem begins is with Pete/Skyring's refusal to listen to others and shifting of focus on talk pages, which confounds discussion and keeps us from reaching a resolution; I get the impression he just wants to keep on ignoring and arguing in circles in the hopes that we'll all just give up and let him make the change he wants. I would otherwise just disengage from him if it weren't for the fact that he explicitly said at Talk:List of current heads of state and government that he would revert that article yet again and then actually did so. In other words, I doubt his edit warring is going to stop. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with this view. Looking at this section, I outlined the situation and called for consensus, beginning with the wording. Two days passed. I asked for comments. Two more days passed. When, given no response, I made the small change outlined, Mies and GoodDay reverted it, complained that they didn't like it and refused to suggest any alternate wording. Mies then unilaterally opened an RfC, with options which were confusing, couched in misleading terms and did not address the issue. He has one supporter on this - GoodDay. I am all for collaboration and consensus, and invite Mies and GoodDay and anybody else to start the process again, beginning with wording the options proposed in a meaningful way. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course you'd overlook the the lengthy, cyclical, and confounded debate that preceded your "call for consensus" and the long term edit war you've been carrying on at that article ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). As can be seen from the links, that warring has gone on right up until today and the discussion at the talk page that seeks to find a resolution seems to be going nowhere because of your refusal to listen to others, misrepresentation of their positions, accusations of bad faith, evasion of questions, lack of focus, and shifting of goalposts. I've made a suggestion that meets everyone's concerns (no implication that the Queen is Australia's head of state for you, a consistently applied governing logic throughout the list for myself and other editors), yet, you continually reject it for the most incomprehensible reasons. It appears as though the only consensus you'll accept is the one that supports the change you want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried to find consensus, and then I did my best to try to work out what Mies' RfC was about. I found it tough going, and I'm still not sure I've unearthed his intentions. --Pete (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
My personal preferenece is that the article remain as it is: 'large font' for Queen & 'small font' for Governor General. It's out of the spirit of collaboration, that I chose to accept Mies' compromise. When are you (Skyring) gonna do the same? PS: Skyring, you of all editors, shouldn't be going on about others 'intentions'. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Neither the existing presentation, with Queen presented in a larger font than the Governor-General, nor Mies' compromise addresses the neutral point of view difficulty. If two sections of the Australian community differ in their views about the identity of the head of state, then we should give due weight to both views. Not ignore one because we don't agree. It's like tolerance. Tolerance isn't a matter of getting along with people you like. Tolerance is about getting on with people you don't like. What helps keep Wikipedia strong when so many topics have wildly divergent opinion bases is our NPOV policy. It works. It's how the God article became a useful resource instead of a battleground. Wikipedia editors can't decide singly or collectively who is the one true God - if it came to a vote on this English-language Wikipedia, it would probably be the Christian deity, or maybe Jimbo - but we can ensure that we keep our collectively-written encyclopaedia neutral, so that readers who come to us for knowledge get the facts, and they may make up their own minds without us directing them along one branch of a forking path. Your personal preference is important, and deserves respect if we value you as an individual, but we can't build an encyclopaedia based on personal opinions. We have to work together. I learnt this the hard way. I think that we Wikipedians are helping to build a better world, I really do, and it gives me joy to be part of such a wonderful project. How do you feel? --Pete (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You're developing into a SPA, concerning the Australian head of state topic. The very same topic you got into trouble with, years ago. I've put aside my personal preference at the article-in-question (I'm a republican, not a monarchist). Regrettable (thanks to 1 editor). So please, stop with the "my Pov, is NPoV" stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
My position is that there is a difference of opinion, and that WP:NPOV requires that we present both views with appropriate weight. --Pete (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
"My PoV, is NPoV", isn't a good basis for one's argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that accepting Wikipedia's NPOV policy is an extremely good path to getting along in this community of often strongly-opinionated editors, each with the ability to alter the communal text at will. I commend it to you. However, I fear that we are clogging up AN/I with our friendly discussion here. I raised this incident when you were edit-warring by removing my request that an unsourced statement be sourced. That seems to have held and been properly sourced, so I'm happy with that. You've raised this subsection, concerned with my behaviour as an editor, and I'm happy for that to be scrutinised, but escaped criminal that I am, the eyes of the community are always upon me anyway. Do you see any need for administrator action, or can we let the admins return to their slumber now? --Pete (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I told ya, it shouldn't have been brought to this venue. If administrators want to 'close'? I won't dispute it. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think administrators should have a good look at your conduct at that article, especially the long-term edit warring, the promise to do so again, and the tactics you employ at the talk page to ensure that it won't reach any resolution that isn't the edit you want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It's up to Skyring - collaborate or stalemate. If he's seeking an endurance test? I got all the time in the world, honestly. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TE by IP[edit]

See my prior report at AN/I [25], as well as a discussion at User_talk:Jpgordon#Theosophical_Society_dispute. As I asked in the latter:

  • "If you repeatedly ask someone (IP or not) to not post to your talk page, and they continue to do so, is that not actionable?"
  • "Often, yeah. But some uninvolved admin will need to stick their nose in for that. "

I'd appreciate help from an uninvolved admin. I've asked him/her to stop, tried "hat"/"hab", and reverted and ignored, but enough is enough. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've also informed the IP that his/her conduct is under discussion here, and that they need to disengage from interaction with you. See your talk page, as I made the same request in reverse there. No thoughts on the underlying dispute. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
His promises to continue edit warring will cause difficulty soon, I fear; what's really going on is a disagreement about sourcing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, all, for the help and comments. I have been, and will remain, disengaged. Regarding the underlying dispute, I don't have a dog in that hunt, so to speak, and am not an involved editor on that page. I think it should be easy for an editor with knowledge, background and interest in the topic to find proper sources. I don't understand why the need to do so is hard to accept, nor difficult to do, nor the rationale behind stating that improperly sourced edits will continue to be made after the article's semi-protection expires [26]. For that matter, if adding the edit is so important, why not register for an account? - JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The IP editor was previously blocked due to a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. The editors' statements suggest that he plans to continue reverting. He has already been notified of this ANI report. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools[edit]

Do we really allow advertising in User space? I put a speedy delete tag on User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools but it was declined with the rationale "give the user time to develop it in user space". Corvus cornixtalk 18:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It might not be advertising. It easily could be a genuine attempt to create a good article about the company. Given that it's still in userspace, it doesn't seem fair to delete it currently.--KorruskiTalk 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
When do we start deleting advertising out of User space? Corvus cornixtalk 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure. I would imagine it is a judgement call as to when it becomes blatant advertising, and clearly not an attempt to create an article. In this case, the page seems to be comprised of a few broadly factual statements. It has no contact details except for a very small link to the website, and makes no particularly advertising-type claims. I just can't see the problem with it. Have you taken the time to ask the user what his intentions are with the page before tagging it for speedy deletion or raising it at AN/I?--KorruskiTalk 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
{{noindex}} can be liberally used whenever there's a question about whether or not the spam is blatant enough. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the page has not been indexed since creation, because it includes {{Userspace draft}}, which has NOINDEX built-in. As such, the obscure subpage wouldn't be a particularly effective advertising vector. –xenotalk 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
A user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material.. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
But its not clearly spam and you tagged it two minutes after it was created. Slow down there speed racer, give it a bit, dont chase a newbie off. It used a draft template that kept it from being indexed and is at the very least informative, if slightly out of tone. Dont bite. -- ۩ Mask 23:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I never understand the willingness to let crap stay here. Ads are crap. This is an ad. Corvus cornixtalk 03:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools. Would almost certainly be speedily deleted if moved to main space. Fences&Windows 04:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
But it's not in mainspace. It's a user subpage, clearly marked as a draft, unindexed, and with no content that looks particularly like blatant promotion. Why on earth would we have a problem with this?--KorruskiTalk 13:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Never mind. This isn't the place. I'll take my thoughts to the MfD.--KorruskiTalk 14:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


The user has updated his personal attack on another user - one he has clashed with on numerous times regarding their different political views. He also launched a personal attack on myself, both on my talk page and on the topics talk page a few weeks ago which I never took action about at the time. The user has been warned numerous times about his edits, and blocked before for edit warring. His editing behaviour has improved somewhat since, but he needs to be engaged about his personal attacks. Greenman (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a warning --Diannaa (Talk) 15:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda of User:Wikinger[edit]

Resolved: DMack has blocked. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We have raid of neonazist here:

He putted 14 words where he could, making digits from fasces and sigrunes. (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user JoMontNW is in violation of his suspension[edit]

This link [[27]] is a reference to the initial incident report filed back on 16 February 2011 (UTC).

JoMontNW is currently under a week-long suspension for disruptions on various articles, block evasions and sockpuppetry. Instead of serving his week-long suspension however, he once again went into defiance mode by creating yet another sockpuppet, Earth11bale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (his ninth sockpuppet, tenth if you consider his personal IP address, and using it to carry out all the same disruptions that landed him in suspension to begin with. Keep in mind, he is only in his third day of a seven-day suspension. A certain Wikipedia administrator suggested an indefinite block should this particular editor continue his disruptive ways following his week-long block. Judging by the events of earlier today, from Earth11bale’s contribution list, to his brash uncivil comment on his talk page, and the articles of Natalie Morales and The Today Show being padlocked and protected from persistent vandalism; I think it is very clear that JoMontNW is not going to be a civil Wikipedian. It would be greatly appreciated if an administrator step in and hand down the absolute most appropriate action to ensure this editor does not use Wikipedia as a brick wall to spray his vandalizing graffiti again. Fourviz (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

weird edit summaries[edit]

I can't tell if someone is being outed or defamed, or if this is just a weird joke. Need another set of eyes.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No clue what's going on, but edit summaries have been deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Need quick user page protection at User:Jojhutton[edit]

I am being rudely attacked and threatened by a user on my user space. please protect my user space.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I place a short protection on your page. Did you want it longer or less? Elockid (Talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine for now. Hopefully the vandal will find better things to do with his tiem in the next few days. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay then. Elockid (Talk) 16:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Any clues as to who the sockmaster might be? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
CU to the rescue! GiantSnowman 16:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The blocked user evaded and used an IP to continue. The IP needs blocked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Page protection not in place, attacks are continuing at the present.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
So far there are a couple of ips and a few logged in users. Any new accounts should be blocked on site and as soon as identified, without waning.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they've got both pages semi'd now. That IP was attacking other pages also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this user the same as this user? Looking for sockmaster...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Could be. My bet is that this is not over and the vandal will return with another account soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The 83.30.* range is Wikinger, but the political sock accounts are probably somebody unrelated. Fut.Perf. 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. Here's the SPI case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I have also rangeblocked for 3 months. Elockid (Talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again)[edit]

Noticing a few pages on my watchlist getting hit by AWB edits by Rich Farmbrough, I found that he again is violating his editing restrictions (basically, no AWB edits that don't change anything substantial on the pages edited). I notified him of this here, but he continued with the the exact same type of edits, e.g. this one.

The only effect that edit has is that Category:Articles with tags with unsupported types is no longer on that page. Sounds good, until you realise that that category was created last week by Rich Farmbrough, without much (any?) discussion apparently, and lists pages with template parameters he doesn't like, but which work without any problem and are, despite what the category proclaims, 100% supported. E.g. in the example I gave, "Biographies" is changed to "Biography", even though both have the same effect, and "Biographies" is the tag that is suggested by the documentation at Template:Notability.

As far as I can see, Rich Farmbrough has created a category to deprecate some tags from parameters, despite the fact that these work perfect and are the ones suggested by the template documentation, and he is then violating his editing restriction to implement his preferred version. Fram (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope other Admins will, as usual, ignore this regular harassment by Fram. I am not the only editor on Wikipedia who's life is made tedious by his doubtless well meant, but pettifogging and ill informed attempts to be the Policeman of Wikipedia. <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
i'd hope you'd stop violating your editing restrictions and show some respect for the community. If you can't do that, you know where the door is. I'm getting a great sense of deja vu as this story is starting to sound like so many more that have come before it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec, agree with Crossmr by the way) As usual? Previous discussions have resulted in two editing restrictions, and 3 blocks. Could you perhaps address the actual remarks being made, instead of focusing on the editor who makes them? Why are you imposing your preferred tags (and spacing of headers, and capitalization of persondata tags)? Fram (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (and is there any reason why, after I have twice shown you that you are adding an incorrect month to some tags, you still do this[28]?) Fram (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Rich, this is really bad. I've only barely touched the previous discussions, but I see 3 non-controversial blocks in your history. I don't think I've ever seen an admin blocked for more than a few hours without being unblocked, so my (admittedly inexperienced) eye tells me you've probably done something wrong, over and over. You're going to end up being desysopped (this is a warning from a neutral party, not a threat). Can't you just quit making minor edits with AWB, or your fake AWB bot or whatever it is they're claiming you use? Also, your response employed nothing of substance to respond to the accusation whatsoever, but it did make a clear-cut use of the famous ad hominem logical fallacy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This sort of random renaming of template parameters is one of R.F.'s habits, and it's also a violation of his editing restriction. Unilaterally declaring that "Biography" is a better parameter name than "Biographies", and then editing thousands of articles to make the change, is a clear example of a cosmetic change. How is that tracking category populated, by the way? Can't the template that populates it just have the category link removed?

Unfortunately, the only way to stop this is going to be an edit restriction that prevents R.F. from making large scale edits via AWB and bots. The present, limited edit restrictions would have been sufficient, but R.F. has persistently ignored them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of edit restrictions, is this not covered in the AWB rules (minor edits of no consequence) as something not to be done? --Errant (chat!) 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
OK - I looked at the changed articles, and they were good edits, because the plural form was not placing the edits into the correct category (due to checks within the template), but the singular was. In essence, it corrected a user typing error. I would not call this a minor edit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The solution there would be to fix the template. If this went before a bot approval, they would point out that just changing the invocation of {{TDMCA}} would fix the issue without requiring any article edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)...if not for tha fact that Rich Farmrbough first changed the template to only accept the singular[29], making the previously accepted and preferred parameter suddenly unwanted: a change which he only mentioned after the discussion here started[30]. This was not proposed, not discussed. Because his implementation only supports one tag per type, and because he choose other ones than the ones so far supported, he has to make thousands of "minor" edits to articles that didn't have a problem before he started tinkering with the template... Fram (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
@Errant: Yes, but admins are automatically authenticated by AWB (and even if they weren't, one can compile a custom AWB that doesn't authenticate the user or reveal that it is AWB; or use some other bot framework). So it's not practical to just disable AWB access, which would otherwise be a useful way to address AWB abuse.
My opinion, based on the long-term pattern, is that the only way to dissuade R.F. from making such meaningless edits is going to be a strict edit restriction backed up by blocks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait a moment, can somebody please explain what is actually going on technically? Through what template mechanism are those categories actually pulled into the articles, and what template code determines which parameter versions are matched to these categories and which aren't? Why is it that the template documentation actually prescribes the plural forms, but Rich is now exchanging plurals with singulars? Rich has recently been editing the notability template, but I can't make heads and tails of it technically. Fut.Perf. 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Rich added a tracking category in the template's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
...and because the categories he created are called Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability (and parallel names), his solution needs the tag to be "Biography" (i.e. the exact word used in the category name), not some variation of it like bio, biographies, ... (yes, it took mes ome time as well to figure it out). Why he choose to change everything to fit his solution, instead of finding a solution that matches current practice (and the template documentation and so on) is not really clear. Why he didn't discuss this isn't clear either. Neither is it clear why he is still adding date=January 2011 to templates, even when we are closer to March than to January. Or why he is still changing the capitalization of Persondata parameters, despite clear opposition against this (not just from me). Fram (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Summary: R.F. changed the implementation of the Notability template, to use {{TDMCA}} instead of {{DMCA}}. Unfortunately, the new implementation is broken, because it assumes the notability template parameter's name is "Biography" instead of "Biographies". Rather than fixing this by editing the template code, R.F. added a tracking category for the pages that use the (perfectly correct) parameter "Biographies", so that he could edit every one of them to change the parameter to "Biography". This would never have made it through the bot approvals group. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From what I can make out Rich added the new option of "Biography" to the template the other day, and is now changing some of the templates to that form. This then lets the template automatically put the article in Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability, that seems a reasonable and sensible change. But it would have been nice to see Rich explain that rather than the response he did make here... --Errant (chat!) 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a message 3 days ago in Rich's talk page User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Trying_to_populate_newly_introduced_parameters.3F on the new parameters which I find odd too and I got no answer. My comment there explains why I find plural better than singular. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Re: answers to me above. Now to be fair, it's kind of hard to handle plurals in wiki-code. Most especially when the plural is a y -> ies change. Maybe someone would volunteer to make this change (if technically possible), and avoid nuclear war for the rest of us? Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Trying to come up with a solution to that now (agreed, it would be the easiest solution) but I am not entirely certain there is one. --Errant (chat!) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We would have saved a lot of effort if the change was previously discussed somewhere so we all together could combine ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
One easy fix: in the notability template, move the invocation to TMDCA up into the switch statement, so that you can hard-code the appropriate category for each group of parameters. It's not like we have hundreds of different parameter options. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)It may not be as "fullyautomatix" as the current solution, but a variation on this may work (not tested, just taken and adapted from a different template):

{{#ifeq:{{{bio|¬}}}{{{Biography|¬}}}{{{Biographies|¬}}}|¬¬¬¬||[[:Category:Biography articles with topics of unclear notability]]}} Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That would mean putting more logic into TMDCA. Since we already have a switch with a complete list of parameters in the notability template, I think it's better to consolidate all the logic there. — Carl (CBM · talk)
Oh, I meant that this should be put into the notability template instead of the TMDCA, sorry that I wasn't clear. Fram (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It is actually an easy fix, there are several ways to do it, but the point is to be scalable. CBM's is a preferable fix out of those offered. However there are several hundred completely incorrect paramter 1 values - I will provide a link shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Also, on a somewhat related issue, Rich managed to transclude {{TDMCA}} on 150,785 pages with nought for edit protection (4.234% of all content pages). Mistakes like this are precisely the reason I always encourage Rich to discuss his changes, templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

TDMCA created without edit summary and has no documentation. I don't know what it does. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't editing a fully protected template to implement such changes without discussion on the talk page first not a violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy and thus of your admin abilities? Fram (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
TDMCA wasn't protected til just now. It looks like some hack added to the notability template[31] a few days ago (that is why it's transcluded into so many articles) in order to add a new category to articles containing notability tags of unrecognized type (person, organization, etc), and maybe similarly for other templates. I agree something like that shouldn't have been done without discussion, particularly about finding editors willing to actually update the relevant articles based on that category. (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I was replying to "templates like Notability aren't sysop-protected for no reason": Rich repeatedly edited this fully protected template, Template:Notability, making substantial changes, without any prior discussion. This is a violation of the protection policy and thus a misuse of his admin capabilities. Creating an unprotected template which indirectly appears 150,000 articles is, at first sight, just a bit of stupidity, but not a real violation in itself. Fram (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right, yes, that makes sense. But, I think templates like Notability are protected to prevent vandalism across the huge range of transcluded pages; it's not like an article protected due to edit warring. Changing (e.g.) some words in a protected template probably shouldn't be considered too much of a problem. But complicated template programming that hits so many pages really should be reviewed and (if possible) tested on a separate server before being deployed on the live server. (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, why do this with templates at all? Why not just process a database dump offline? And it was pretty bogus to write a template like that with no documentation. (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
See User:Rich Farmbrough/temp220. The tracking category is for long term maintenance, and the database dump is 4 weeks out of date so, no it's not bogus for those reasons although a db dump is is useful. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
The template's merits can be reasonably debated, but if you're going to write such a pervasive template at all, it's completely bogus to not write any documentation for it. It was quite hard to figure out in part because it's hard to see the actual link graph of transclusions in the wiki (you can only see the transitive closure of all transclusions for any template or article, unless I'm missing something), but documentation really would have helped. We could use some better tools on toolserver to analyze this (it could also be done with Mediawiki extensions, but that might cause a performance hit). (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What would most users do when it has been pointed out to them that they have made policy violations, edits whoch don't have support and should have been discussed beforehand, plus violatons of editing restrictions, plus numerous errors (many pages dated with the wrong month)? Yes, obviously, go to an unrelated RfC/U that the messenger filed about an unrelated user, and give a totally diff-free distortion of the facts, meanwhile complaining about a lack of "the collegial approach that we try to foster in Wikipedia"... From someone who replied to this ANI discussion with the personal attack of "regular harassment", this is rather hyopocritical. Fram (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fram, I'm not entirely sure that going off topic this way helps. Just as he should know better than to have responded as he did, so should you DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, but it does show a good example of his pattern of response, which is often more "attack the messenger" than "debunk the claims". Fram (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
So, Fram, what do you suggest at this point? olivier (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that a block is needed to prevent further disruption, and then we need to discuss how to update the editing restriction to disallow any automated editing and any editing of protected templates without prior discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If I try to summarize, my understanding is that:

  1. RF is making "AWB edits that don't change anything substantial on the pages edited", and that is called the "disruption" here
  2. RF, as an admin, has altered a protected template without discussion ("protected" here = only admins can edit), but not necessarily with a damaging outcome.
  3. Some users are unpleased by the way RF is interacting with them.

Is that a fair summary? olivier (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For #1, R.F. is under an active edit restriction about trivial AWB edits, which is listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
The larger issue is a long-term pattern of this sort of thing from R.F.: undertaking large-scale unapproved (and often completely undiscussed) bot jobs, combined with a lack of communication. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
For #2, the damaging outcome is that thousands of pages that worked perfectly allright before, have to be changed to fit his solution; that admins editing pages that other editors are not allowed to edit gives admins an editing superpower which was never the intention of the admin bit (and which is for that reason disallowed by policy; that an unprotected template stood for a few days on 150,000 pages, giving vandals the chance to vandalize that many pages at once.
For #1, apart from the changes that don't add anything to the page, there are also too many errors, like adding the wrong month to tags[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]..., or adding the same parameter twice with different values[46]. Note that in many of his AWB edits, he is also still adding or changing the defaultsort no matter if it is relaistically necessary or not, despite an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC on Sortkey issue, where there is no consensus to do this automatically, and a number of editors raisesd their reservations independently. The short discussion at Help_talk:Category#Defaultsort is indicative of why such AWB edits are a problem: "I've hesitated to remove them, because the massiveness of such edits suggests some reason for them." Editors see an admin making hundreds or thousands of edits with the same pattern, and presume that this is some agreed-upon, imposed rule, instead of being the preference of one or some editors, which may be removed again at will if it doesn't improve anything in any way, as is often the case. Fram (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That make things clear for people new to the matter. olivier (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We all know Fram that that is not "an onging RFC" it has not been edited for some 5 weeks. And it was started by you. You cannot use it as a chilling effect forever. Basically you take arms against something then never stop, which might be laudable in some cases, but here is merely tiresome. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
I'm missing something in the discussion, though - for clarity's sake, Rich, do you have anything to add on whether or not your edits violate your editing restrictions? If it's a frivolous accusation, as you seem to imply, great - we can put it to bed. If not, then it probably should be discussed in that context as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for cutting to the crux. As the above discussion shows these were not "null edits" by another name, but a moderately small change to provide additional functionality using time tested techniques. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
Incidentally the link to the list showing the indisputably bad values of parameter 1 I gave earlier as promised but it was overwritten by Fram here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
That clearly looks like a software accident of submitting at the same time, which didn't result in an edit conflict. Fram is not to blame for it happening. SilverserenC 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that must have been an unidentified edit conflict. It's not as if I had any interest in suppressing that edit by Rich Farmbrough. Note that he could have used that dump to remove the obviously incorrect parameters from pages (e.g. "date+March 2008") without anyone protesting and without any change to the template. Note also that page tells us that before Rich's AWB edits, there were 2214 pages using Biographies, and 4 using Biography: but after the template change, the latter was the only accepted value, and the former had to be changed. If there are only 4 "correct" pages in your solution, and 2214 "wrong" ones, it may be time to change the attempted solution. Fram (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I see these as well-intentioned edits that did not work as planned because of insufficient thought and especially lack of consultation. I'm not a template expert, but there seem to be some good solutions above. And I do know that even trivial changes of this sort that affect many articles have to be done very carefully. The time to have them discussed would of course have been before the template was changed and the edits made--and I would think anyone experience here would have realized it, so it is rather extreme carelessness or perhaps over-confidence, especially in view of prior restrictions. Given all this, I think we need a firm restriction now that Rich must consult before any new change of templates or new AWB job. The recourse if that should fail would be a total ban from editing templates and using AWB at all, to be enforced by clock if necessary. We must deal with this, but we should do it in a measured way. Rich, please tell us you understand that problem and that you're willing to accept this. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that Rich quit using any sort of automation or programming (including template programming) on Wikipedia for a while. If Rich wants to contribute his software skills to improving the Wikipedia ecosystem, he should do it at toolserver for the time being. That way if something goes wrong with one of his programs, it won't disrupt wiki-editing nearly as much as these bot and AWB incidents have done. I can think of several useful tools Rich could write, that would help with the maintenance tasks Rich has been interested in, while making no edits at all to Wikipedia. (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that Rich Farmbrough also changed Template:Refimprove, also fully protected, to introduce a "type" parameter through his new, undiscussed and then unprotected and undocumented TDMCA template. All this contributed to have Category:Articles with tags with unsupported types with 6000 pages which had no problem before this template was introduced. The same was done on Template:Wikify and Template:Expand list. The latter is not protected (but probably should be, with 11000 transcluaions), so I left it alone: the former was a protected template as well, so I reverted the change there and at Refimprove.
One example of what these changes accomplished. The previous version of Samuel Gougeon listed the article correctly at Category:TV articles of unclear notability. After Rich Farmbrough inserted his "type" template, the article had to be changed to accept a different parameter (not cat=TV but type=Television) to be listed in Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability? The actual gain of these changes? Zero. But the effect is that because of these changes, undoing his change to the template isn't enough, now many related changes, to categories and articles, have to be undone as well. All because this was not discussed before implementation, even though it is in general wanted for such changes, and certainly when it is done to protected templates. I'll try to undo as much of the damage as possible, but it may take a while. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly on the Wikify template this would be a bad change; we don't work by topic, but by date :) I think Rich needs to discuss this proposal centrally somewhere; while I have no issue with it in general he a) is under editing restrictions which should always make him pause for thought and b) such a major change should always be proposed somewhere obvious and gain consensus. If he had done so then probably the mass update would not have been needed. --Errant (