Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426

Just a day or so ago Hegumen was warned not to call people names like tatars (in the special pejorative connotation) and curse them (See [1]). Today he put this on a userpage.--Laveol ^T 21:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

48 hour block by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and listed at ARBMAC. We're done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

only fair to mention he self-reverted it 2 minutes after he placed it, and before the above message was placed, with the user summary, "watch yourself". In view of that, I think the block was perhaps not neededDGG (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a block reduction? The comment stays in the history, after all, and a (short) block may be sufficient to give the editor pause before he hits the "Save" button next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was fully aware he had self-reverted. But I can hardly interpret that as anything other than a conscious attempt to game the system. The insult was made and cannot be unmade that easily. If you walk up to someone and tell them "you f..ing idiot!" and then the next moment "oh, I didn't say that", does that mean you really didn't say it? Of course not. An apology would have been the minimum requirement to show he honestly meant to take it back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary after his block says enough, really. I'm pretty sure he's not going to apologize.--Atlan (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I'm was evading my ban. The sock puppet my insult was directed to was deserving of it. I have nothing against the Bulgarians as a people. I do, however, have a problem with those who use the chauvinist sentiments of the 19th century to demean their neighbors. I took a page out of their book, if I'm a "West Bulgarian" he's a "Tatar". I do apologize for the disruption I've caused. --124.182.46.34 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd helop mangoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs a block - it's the Avril Lavinge vandal back again, this time attacking the Help Desk. If someone wouldn't mind protecting Wikipedia:HDPATROL as well, there shouldn't be any reason for it to be edited except by Help Desk volunteers. Thanks - I'd do it myself, but I'd rather not log into my admin account since this is an insecure connection. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked and semi-protected. The only issue is that a few of these vandals are sleeper accounts that have reached the 4 + 10 standards for autoconfirm status. I can't full protect since a lot of the help page patrol aren't administrators. I wonder though, is Wikipedia:HDPATROL even necessary? Metros (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye, semi protection is probably best - any sleepers can be blocked and checkusered if needed. I'm not really sure if that template is entirely needed either, though, but that's something to bring up on the Help Desk's talk page. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has posted as me (but it was very emphatically not me): [2]. How could this have happened? This post was on part of Wikipedia where I do not have an account--did someone make a second acct with my username, or has my acct been compromised? -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They might be using an isomer of your username: for example using capital i to replace lowercase L or using Cyrillic letters. They have a unified login now, might want to try that out. 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That link you gave is on Simple Wikipedia. If you didn't create an account there, someone else is allowed to create one with your name and use it all they want. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, but they put a userpage redirect from Simple to my userpage on en Wikipedia...-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible the person just has the same name, but if you are really concerned about impersonation you need to bring it to the attention of the admins at Simple Wikipedia. They have different administrators and handle things their own way. _{1 != 2} 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The passwords don't match--I just tried to log in to simple Wikipedia using my en password. I deleted the userpage redirect from simple to en. I was alerted to this because a bureaucrat on the Simple Wikipedia sent me an email asking me a question about something "PetraSchelm" posted on Simple Wikipedia, which made no sense to me, since I didn't post anything there...do I need to protect the username PetraSchelm on meta, wikiquote, Wiktionary + whatever else now? -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want anyone else taking them, then yes. Otherwise, you could add a line to your user page explaining the situation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Go to Special:MergeAccount and see what other accounts exist with your username. The crat on Simple can rename the impersonator so that you get the name instead. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's always a problem when you use the name of a real person and there would be problems if you ever needed accounts on several wikis. However, if somebody else has taken that account name on another Wiki, as far as I can see, you can't usurp that account. --Rodhullandemu 15:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not my real name--it's the name of a deceased member of the Baader Meinhof. But using it is one thing--putting a redirect to my en.Wiki userpage from the simple Wiki userpage is direct impersonation. (And they are definitely posting as if they were me--talking about Squeakbox, etc.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked the user and renamed them. I suggest that you create your global account ASAP to prevent it happening again - if it's someone that hates you from a dispute, it's likely to happen again. Archer7 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Archer. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Singthesorrow1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding information and claiming that it's from Census 2006 which is incorrect since the official site says other wise which can be viewed here. The user also told me not to undo their edits [3]. The article in question is Gunnedah, New South Wales. Bidgee (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest incarnation is User:Boney Guy. His latest edits are more self-referential--he keeps editing pages about himself and his banned status.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first edit alone is rather convincing. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What now for Naked Short Selling, Gary Weiss, Overstock.com & Patrick M. Byrne?

Since we will now presumabley have no base against which to compare ip addresses (in the case of slips by socks) and that the individual who abuses these multiple accounts will doubtless continue to attempt to manipulate these articles, and will try harder to remain undetected, what can we do to protect them from editing by this person - short of deleting them as not sufficiently notable, and as a vandal/puppetmaster magnet, which was rejected when I proposed this earlier? I suggest that the articles be protected so only admins can edit it, and the talkpages be semi-protected to disallow manipulation by ip/newbies who may also be the same individual. I do not see any of these articles as sufficiently common knowledge subjects that would attract passing ip/new editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Securities fraud to the list as well. The greatest challenge is that editors knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to really root out any subtle POV have shown little interest in editing the articles involved; I can't entirely blame them, as there is such scrutiny and they would have reason to believe there might be difficulties. I've done what I could with Securities fraud given my limited knowledge of this subject; and User:John Nevard, a regular editor on Naked short selling, has identified a preferred version for that article. That probably isn't sufficient though; I'd love to find a few editors with expertise in this area to really clean up the financial articles. The biographies are in better shape, I think. Risker (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being intimately familiar with this situation, I think the general approach for sock-infested articles is to semi-protect. Make the COI-nik work a little to auto-confirm his sockpuppets before he uses them; more than that is not necessary or productive, and is likely to shut out legitimate editors. To make it perfectly clear: do you really want to prevent me from editing these articles since I'm not an admin? (Not that I really care to edit them anyway, but I'm just asking about the principle.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shalom. More eyes and hands are a better solution. Why not ask members of the Finance, Companies and Business and Economics wikiprojects if they would help out? None of these projects is very active, but there are dozens of editors there with an interest or knowledge (or both) in the general area. Better to intensify our openness than radically restrict it. At least, we should try that first. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did solicit the assistance of Business and Economics shortly after the Arbitration Committee decision[4], and received only one response to my request[5], although other editors may have responded directly on the articles. I would be happy to continue to keep an eye on the articles, even semi-protect them and/or provide visible administrative support for neutral editors, but perhaps others might have more success than did I in recruiting editors with subject matter expertise. Active recruitment is probably needed, so anyone who knows an editor who's capable of doing a good job should go out and ask them personally to pitch in. It's an area of the encyclopedia where I've never really wandered, so I have no real familiarity with who's got the editing chops for this kind of assignment. Risker (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks. Some will say that any comment from me must be self-interested and biased, and hence must be ignored. I suggest, however, that such is precisely the knee-jerk thinking that let this problem persist so long, and so egregiously. When one discovers that one holds a belief in error, it is not enough simply to root out that error: one must retrace the thinking that led one to hold that error, and consider the possibility that other beliefs one holds are similarly misguided. After taking so long to get you good people to open your minds to a truth that could not be synthesized within your paradigm, now that you are there, please, please consider the following claims without reflexively responding with the obvious "oh you must be biased" stuff. You have to rethink everything you believe about this situation.

1) I concede that the perfidy of MM/GW is extreme: most people, when caught, understand that they are caught. Few can just stand in and refuse to own their acts so steadfastly, so brazenly, as MM/GW did here. It is hard for normal people to imagine such a person, so the length it took it took this community to get the joke is understandable. No blood no foul. But now that you get it, you should go back and reconsider some things you think you know. For example, I promise: Judd Bagley, Wordbomb, is the good guy. He saw what was going on, and tried to unmask MM. He thought this unmasking was for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. He may have violated some rules you have (remember, he was new to them all), but in retrospect, now that everyone clearly understands what MM was doing, does anyone really not get that Judd was trying to stop a guy who was manipulating everything that Wikipedia is about? If you see MM now in a new light, should you not see Wordbomb in a new light as well?

2) Some answer, "But what about Wordbomb's smear campaign?" To us, that is just more Bizarro World. MM hijacked pages on Naked Short Selling, twisting the facts so they read like something out of People's Daily. That coincided with a smear campaign against me and the company for which I work, so as to undercut our efforts to get the mainstream press interested in this financial scandal. Judd/Wordbomb tried to expose what MM was doing: in MM's Bizarro World that was translated into "Wordbomb is running a smear campaign".

3) Each time I try to get involved it's rejected with a claim along the lines of, "Byrne's just mad that the article about him is unflattering." Come on. That is not what this is about. There is a cover-up of a financial crime going on, Wikipedia has been used in that cover-up, and we're trying to break through a cover-up.

4) I did take a crack at editing the Naked Short Selling article, which in the eyes of any serious observer is laughably slanted, thanks to MM. Because I knew that some would claim that I was biased, I kept my edits substantively neutral. The content of the article as it stood ended with a section that was supposed to have claims from each side represented. However, the anti-NSS points were kept to a minimum, and were so badly written that they appeared to mean the opposite of what had actually been said. The pro-NSS claims were allowed to be far more numerous, and they were repeated over and over throughout the article. That was ridiculous. So I reorganized the article, keeping all the material that was there, but cut and pasted so that the start was simply factual, then had a section explicitly stating all the pro-NSS points, and another for all the anti-NSS claims. The point of view that opposed my own was completely retained, and simply brought together as one set of explicit statements. That was clearly intolerable for MM, because it created the possibility of the anti-NSS side then having a section where its own points could be stated. Thus my version was reverted and reverted. I challenge anyone to look at the version that I wrote and name anything missing in it from the current MM-approved version. It's all there. I just cleaned it up so that the MM claims no longer permeate the article, but have their own discrete location. I really do think that it would be a good place to start fixing the current article.

5) If you don't do that, you should consider just canning all the articles in question, and starting over, only with tightly-controlled involvement of well-known Wikipedia players. These events were not a random accident, or just a result of one guy, MM, having a fetish for this subject. There are reasons that he went to such elaborate lengths to corrupt them. Those reasons have not gone away. If you try again from scratch, there are people who have an interest in seeing those articles corrupted again.

6) Lastly, once again I request that you ask yourself, Cui bono? Who benefited? Did MM do this because he is just a nut? Why would it be important for someone to go to fanatical lengths to hijack a page concerning a financial crime? Now that you have as a community realized what MM was up to, you must ask yourselves, why? Otherwise, their disinformation campaign will find a new avenue of attack. (If you want to know how all of this fits into the bigger picture, I suggest you read Mark Mitchell's article on the front page of DeepCapture.com.) PatrickByrne (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The financial dispute does not interest me and is frankly out of my depth. As a Wikipedian I care about keeping the site honest--I'm a geek who volunteers for an encyclopedia. I'm asking a couple of uninvolved people who have good editing records, some knowledge of the topic, and zero prior involvement to give these articles a look. It's the best and fairest I can do in this very odd situation. Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While Mr. Byrne see's something behind MM's disruption, I see all too many folks attempting pov pushing and article control on articles that don't have such a potential repucussion to others. So, I'm not neccessarily buying that point. However, the fear shown by so many of us for so long over this issue is hopefully over. Off Topic but, would mr.byrne be able to get wordbomb to distance himself from his attempts at outside damage of the project? (this may have happened already, I don't check those places, and only look in at the 'Board of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth' very rarely). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would consider your sweet reason more plausible were it not for the fact that all of WordBomb's well-documented odious activities and blatant harassment and stalking were conducted at your direction, as your employee, in your interests, on your payroll, from overstock.com IP addresses, over two years. Nothing Gary Weiss is claimed to have done comes anywhere near that. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your commercial interests. Go away. - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WordBomb maintains that he acted alone at the start and was only later hired by Byrne. Do you have a citation to support your contrary assertion about the timing of his employment? --Random832 (contribs) 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea when he started, and can't seriously consider it makes any difference to his well-documented (in Reliable Sources, no less) activities since. Don't be bloody dense - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry David, but odious behaviour on the part of one party does not excuse odious behaviour on the part of another party. We're supposed to be grownups here, not grade schoolers, and we're supposed to be writing a factually non-biased encyclopedia - at least that's what it said on the flyer. Every knowledgeable person I have spoken to has indicated that the financial articles edited by Mantanmoreland are subtly but clearly slanted. Comparing the level of nastiness of these two "problem" editors (both now site-banned) is not getting us the result we need, which is non-biased, factual articles on these subjects. You've been here a long time and know a lot of editors; perhaps you could help out in identifying and asking some people with knowledge in this field to review the articles and clean them up. Your assistance in improving the encyclopedia would be really appreciated. Risker (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not claiming Mantanmoreland has acted wonderfully - but Patrick Byrne is the still-ongoing funding behind one of the sides (his paid meatpuppet WordBomb), weighing in as if to help - he isn't here to help Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, but in an attempt to continue the battle; encouraging him in any way at all doesn't help the project. I expect Overstock is attempting a fresh press push on the matter and is seeking quotes to mine - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct, David. All the more reason for us to get our house back into order and get these articles into decent shape. Will you help to find editors knowledgeable in this subject matter, and encourage them to participate in the cleanup of these articles? Risker (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

David, the evils of Patrick Byrne is not the topic under discussion. How about commenting on the content, not the contributor - what should Wikipedia do concerning the articles LHvU lists? Neıl 龱 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm glad to see DG here. DG, have you apologized yet for your wrongful block of Piperdown? If not, why not? What do you really know about the issue? The Wikipedia world wonders. Cla68 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that DG, this remark was uncalled for and inappropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 - considering your conduct is currently at Arbitration, you may wish to consider this unhelpful off-topic interjection. I will simply say, it did not at all inspire me to gain the impression, "this is someone who wants to reduce distraction, close down disputes, let problems get resolved, sort out misunderstandings, cut down emotive drama spirals, encourage calm thought, get more light than heat, and not escalate problems". This is exactly the kind of concern being expressed by others about your judgement and conduct, at RFAR. I figure its best to point this out, since a live example is often helpful.

Please, think again, change conflict-style, seek advice from others you trust who don't seem to have these issues, or something. It would be helpful and genuinely beneficial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject, FT2. Cla68 is 100% correct when he says that Piperdown is owed an apology. DG made a bad block and it is high time he owned up to it. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, I'm going to ask you the same thing that I've just asked David Gerard. You too have been here a long time, and you may well have contact with some editors knowledgeable enough to bring these articles back to where they should be. Will you help in identifying such editors and encouraging them to participate in cleaning up the articles? That is what we're trying to focus on in this thread. Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Cla68 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Risker, if you need it, I'd be willing to help on the cleanup too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick -- being candid here, and diverting to discuss WordBomb briefly since you raise him, this was an off-wiki dispute of zero interest to us. It was mostly due to WordBomb's own activities against editors and administrators who tried to deal with the dispute - and not Mantanmoreland - that the Mantanmoreland Arbitration case was handled as it was, which confused a lot of people. WordBomb's catalog of improper actions over time shows a history of reliable testimony from a wide range of users, indicating threats, coercion, intimidation, and the like by email. Crude hacking. And of course, sock puppetry. One webforum disabled images specifically to prevent his abuses. See my comments at the time. None of this was okay, and that means both were at fault, not just one.

None of this off-wiki dispute matters to us. The Wikipedia community just doesn't care about the Overstock dramas or those people involved. And I have no illusions: your presence here and the same Overstock issue are not entirely unconnected; WordBomb (I gather) has acted as your employee or the like, in these matters. In this context, the hollowness of the following quote is very unpleasant:

Patrick Byrne: - "I promise:... Wordbomb is the good guy... He may have violated some rules... trying to stop a guy who was manipulating everything..."

No, Patrick. That isn't okay, or even representative of the case. Your "promise" means little to me. You introduced WordBomb, your apparent employee, into this thread, and so David Gerard gave you the brief summary. The detailed one is, what Mantanmoreland did pales into insignificance compared to WordBomb's actions. Do not introduce on the back of a discussion of banned user X, an attempt to whitewash equally banned and far worse user Y who seems to be your employee, I gather. We need none of that. "He may have broken some rules"... That alone has to qualify for most understated statement of this thread.

We are an encyclopedia here, not a battlefield for gamesters. Two gamesters and a number of each of their sockpuppets have been removed. Administrators will likely remove others as we notice them. My apologies for being blunt, but I'm not minded to smokescreen on this one. Thank you.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Spot-on; well said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I'll just say the problem with much of this evaluation is that it fails to consider where Wikipedia acted hostilely toward WordBomb, how early it did this, and the extent it has done this. Clearly at some WordBomb went into "battleground" mode, but he wasn't the first, and the fact is at least the main person he was allegedly stalking seemed as interested in personal campaigns and PR wars on his blog as WordBomb was. Anything recent has to be seen in the context of the Wikipedia campaign that has also been carried out against him. This isn't to say WordBomb's actions have been better than anyone else's, but that when someone is in active battle with Wikipedia, it's worth being a little circumspect at some point about whether there aren't grievances on either side, and about how we judge them. It's also one reason why Wikipedia should work harder to avoid these types of battles, even with people that are seen as unreasonable, the primary issue where I think Wikipedia should realize it has slipped up here. Mackan79 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, the stuff that went on bears no resemblance to what you're describing. It went far beyond any of the kind of things your comment suggests you have in mind. Although these are valid considerations in some disputes, on the stuff I see on arb records, these kinds of reasons carry no weight at all. They were far beyond any kind of act which these comments or mitigations might apply to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that wb's actions have been more egregiously odious than mm's, I submit that we (as en.wikipedia) pushed his unbalance button and set him on a course of awful activity that will very likely never allow him to return as a productive member of the community. Could we have known that he was easily unbalanced and prone to counterproductive and hurtful behavior? no, but we could have acted with a bit more explaination and good faith on day one and perhaps have avoided all this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, he was never a productive member of the community. He behaved inappropriately from the word go. He went after SlimVirgin because she dared act on his initial unacceptable behaviour. Wikipedia is not so desperate for contributors - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deserves no defending, lest we forget what she and her "wikistalking" crusade did to GraceNotes RFA last year. Her bee-in-the-bonnet approach to so-called harassment has been an utter disaster this project, produce not one single improvement, and caused plenty of drama. Please do not represent her as some sort of hero and reflect on your support for her highly questionable actions. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

People, please, not another repeat of the same old primal scream. I know, I know -- it's important that other editors know the backround and we must answer the incorrect statements someone else made. I'd like to propose a simple rule: If anyone in the future ever makes a critical comment on WordBomb, Mantanmoreland, Patrick Byrne or about any actions anyone made in this case, here or elsewhere, at least provide a diff to something, preferably to a statement with its own diffs, as Mackan79 just did. Educate, don't excoriate. And if we don't have anything further to say about helping these articles stay unbiased, it might be helpful to close this discussion soon. This is the opera's final act and the fat lady is clearing her throat. Noroton (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have WP:BOLDly gone and protected the named articles, plus Securities fraud per User:Risker's request above and at my talkpage, for 3 months and semi-protected the related talkpages per my initial suggestion and the couple of positive responses to my comments (before it degenerated into the same usual round of partisan comments regarding a banned user who was - and whisper it LOUDLY - fundamentally correct in their original complaining postings regarding an editor who was abusing alternate accounts when editing these articles). The afore mentioned "debate" also provided another rationale for the protection of the articles; we need uninvolved admins and editors to review the content of these articles sooner rather than later, and create the NPOV articles the subjects deserve. Per Risker's comments, if there are other articles that need protection to allow a consensus to form for the NPOV editing of the subject please note them here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• This seems like a thoroughly excellent idea for sanity's sake - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support protecting these articles, given their troubled history and the quite significant possibility that MM will continue sockpuppeting (and will continue improving at it) in order to manipulate the articles. It is best that a consensus is worked out regarding all changes before they are implemented. I'd also suggest an especially strict application of the civility policy for the associated talk pages. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Gerard, I see precisely the same old "Argument from Stern Authority" that corrupted the discourse so badly that it took your community about a year to see something that is blindly obvious to everyone now. I would have thought that having on your hands three articles whose history more or less indicts this project (including one on me) would have taught you a little humility. Instead, you repeat tired claims in the hope it makes them sound true. The fact is, Judd followed the rules in trying to expose MM, and SlimVirgin posed as a neutral arbiter but betrayed that role. Your founder, Jimbo Wales, interceded and asked the entire community to take his word that he had checked into it, and MM was not a sock-puppet. Judd/WordBomb got crafty, indeed, but in the end proved that SlimVirgin was wrong and Jimbo's word was false. Bombast all you please, but the fact remains: Judd proved that your system itself was in the wrong, but had to step outside your system to prove it. Was he right to do so? I think yes: The fact that Wikipedia still holds as a constitutional principle that WordBomb is wrong, but prevents precisely one person from engaging in that debate (WordBomb himself), tells me not only that he was right before, but also, that the deeper significances of l'affaire du MM has still not sunk in. Until you permit a free debate on this subject, you may as well be lecturing me sternly about the unanimity of popular support for Kim Jong-il in North Korea. Besides that, most of your claims about Judd are just flat falsehoods, which everyone would understand if Judd was actually permitted to defend himself in the discussion rooms of "The Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit!" And lastly, No, I will not intercede with the press and Judd. Partly that is because Judd is his own boss these days. Partly because they are calling him these days, trying to get their heads around this story, and he has waited for that for a long time. But mostly it's because it appears that Dave Gerard's kind of nonsense still corrupts the discourse here, so Wikipedia will never address some fundamental truths about itself, so someone else is going to have to write it for them. I regret that - I am not a vengeful guy - I don't give a toss about the page on me. I see many here are honest and straight, and seem to want to do what is right. But I still see other playground bullies toss their weight around here, and as a result this community let a cover-up persist. You have taken care of the MM problem, but you do not yet see that this all happened because you jettisoned basic procedural fairness, and until this community reclaims it I am not inclined to request that Judd not answer the phone. As far as I can tell, the free press is the only thing that got this community acting with any decency so far. Respectfully PatrickByrne (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Byrne, it's a bit more complicated than that. I nearly did a serious sockpuppet investigation on MM/SH last September, but distaste at Mr. Bagley's investigative methods was a major reason why I held back. So it wasn't until January when the two account histories got parsed in a serious manner that persuaded most of the Wikipedians who followed the issue. Yes, this site's system could be set up better--yesterday I blogged about lessons learned from this case--yet it's Wikipedia's own internal mechanisms that succeeded in bringing MM's siteban. It shouldn't have taken this long or gotten so bitter; this was not well done on any side. Durova^Charge! 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PatrickByrne, you're promoting drama, more drama won't help Judd or help you accomplish any other goals, and it diverts attention from the constructive task of setting these articles right for the long term. This isn't the place. With respect, please stop.Noroton (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the matter this discussion is ostensibly supposed to be about: Protecting the pages for three months has two negative effects: (1) Mantanmoreland has time to develop another sock at the same time that (2) no one is likely to get interested and involved with an article they can't edit for three months. If MM returns, or if other POV-pushers show up, we are less likely to have a healthy number of editors who are up to speed on naked short selling, etc. and who can spot POV pushing. If we can instead somehow recruit interested, knowledgeable editors, the problem is likely to be solved in the long term. And "long term" has been a very important element of this dispute. If the articles are going to be protected for three months, then at least do some more recruiting of editors near the end of that period, when it counts. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the MM ARBCOM case I said: ... Also, suggest that the committee invites amicus briefs from recognized experts in the articles concerned - this could aid both the case itself and also help to benchmark the articles – luke (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC). Unfortunately the Committee weren't listening, nor were they listening when Lar asked: "the committee failed to achieve a consensus on whether sock puppetry occurred" ??? Surely that's a jest! How much more corroboration did you want? Is that actually the case that the committee failed this way?? Then things are possibly worse than I feared. Please put a finding in that states it plainly so it can be voted on, I'd like to see who on the committee actually thinks there wasn't sockpuppetry. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) and 19 people agreed with the request. The Arbcom case was a lost opportunity to settle the issues surrounding these articles without the latest dramatic developments, and the arbiters failure is a standing reproach to all then on the committee.--luke (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine idea to solicit expert opinions. Problem is, Wikipedia has a bad name in academia right now because the professors encounter us mostly via nineteen-year-old plagiarists. We need to do better outreach and reach the point where that plan becomes more viable. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If that was in reply to my comment, I'm only suggesting recruiting Wikipedians -- in fact, just repeating Risker's previous call for volunteers, only trying it at a couple more WikiProject venues. Asking outsiders to come in and learn Wikipedia ways is unlikely to work, especially in the short term, especially in this case. Noroton (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's a good bet that experts don't care to be thoughtlessly reverted. Whether they be wikipedians or martians they'll naturally hope for their contribution to be valued. -- luke (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (reply to Noroton) Thanks for reading! I had hoped the 3 month period would have shocked enough editors to start discussing that... and how the articles should be tackled. I am all for a shorter period, since it is my suggestion that improvements to the article space should be discussed on the various talkpages and neutral admins enact the consensus. Once a NPOV consensus version of an article exists then the full protection can be reduced to a semi (just to stop drive by partisan vandalism by ip's and throwaway accounts) and all edits judged to whether it improves the article while remaining NPOV. I would still semiprotect the talkpages for the same reasons as for the article page. I would hope, with a consensual NPOV page in place, that even the most sophisticated sock couldn't slant the page as it would be reverted as would any editor introducing bias (and the type of bias would raise the suspicion of those watching the articles). I believe that Risker and a couple of others were hoping to see if they could recruit some uninvolved editors to review the articles, and hope that this is the start of some decent work on the subject(s). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, that sounds pretty good. It'll all depend on recruiting those editors. I recommend thick amounts of flattery verging on the fulsome and liberal sprinkling of barnstars once the initial work is done. Noroton (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • (reply to Noroton) I agree we should dispense with the drama, but ask merely that in thinking through the strategy for what to do about these pages, we do not flush the drama down the memory hole: it existed, there is a reason it existed, and we should remember that those dynamics may persist in trying to disrupt any new formalization of these pages. I also agree with Noroton that freezing these pages for three months is a bad idea: such a decision would merely further the agenda of MM, once again. I suggest, however, that there are great big chunks of the current page on Naked Short Selling about which all sides would agree. One possible approach would be to strip the article down to those pieces, and start there. I have made my own effort in that regard, cutting the current article from 3,500 words to 2,100 words. I took out anything that either side would side was a distortion (MM would say that I took out hard facts, I would say that those facts were either carefully parsed, or misleadingly stated, or were not facts at all: for example, the repeated citing of SEC statements from 2005, which have been contradicted by very recent statements). In any case, rather than both sides fighting about whether I cut was or was not neutral, I propose that the reader look at what is left. I do not think there is a sentence in this new version that either side would feel was misleading or inaccurate. If we can get consensus there, then we have a starting point from which to rebuild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting_stripped_down PatrickByrne (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What I parsed out of that page protection was that 3 months appeared provisional--in order to discourage antics--until one or more people who understand the subject (preferably with honorable edit histories and no involvement in this mess) evaluate the content and draft useful improvements. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes - but then most long term time limits (including or especially indefinite) are absolute maximums against which good editing can "earn" reductions. As I said, I hoped the term might have provoked discussion regarding tackling dealing with the subject since my initial post was only a suggestion. I am glad that it appears to have been tentively adopted as a solution, but I am more than open to futher comment, fine tuning, or abandonment in favour of a better method. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Durova - Peace. I understand. There is a drawback to what you propose: the universe of people who understand this stuff is tiny. The intersection of that set and the set of people who edit Wikipedia is more tiny still. The intersection of people who understand this mess, edit Wikipedia, and are not somehow involved in it in the real world, is the null set. I can recommend people to come help (economists and lawyers) but because I recommend them, some will say they must be on my side. So.... How about a combination of two approaches? First, start with the pared down article that I have presented, that has no single line to which anyone, from either side, could object. Then everyone who wants to be involved could submit papers and recent articles on this subject, for a neutral team of Wikipedians to read, and gradually use in fleshing out this article. (There is another alternative: look at my other sandbox article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting : every line that is in the MM-approved version of the NSS article, appears here to. However, I simply structured it so that all the tendentious stuff from both sides was explicitly culled out of the main article, and deposited in the end.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickByrne (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC) PatrickByrne (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, anyone who examines the difference between the two articles will realize that said POV-fork is based off a version of the Wikipedia-approved article that is dated at best. John Nevard (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, I stand by my statement that this stripped-down sandbox version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting_stripped_down (which was based off the article as it stood yesterday morning) retains the basic facts concerning this issue (what it is, what the regulatory history has been, etc.), about which none disagree, and excises those sections which one side or the other would say are biased. An administrator really ought to consider just swapping this for the article as it stands, and then standing guard to make sure only legitimate accretions are made. Anyone disagreeing with this should feel free to tell me what section of the trimmed down article offends them, and we'll remove it. Let us just trim it and trim it until there is no line in it that causes heartburn, and then talk about what gets added. PatrickByrne (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JenJenAndAway at Template:Now (transcluded at Jimbo's user page). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This particular one blocked, but I don't have time to look into what templates may need protection levels changed and which should stay as is and just be dealt with via RBI. --barneca (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the only template vandalized by that account. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Onesimplequestion at Template:Userpageinfo as well. Also, for a bit last week there was Avril stuff here similar to those two templates. Should we CU? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm filing a report now. (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Avril Vandals) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this, do I add it myself? Anyways User:AvrilUrge can be added to the list of known accounts. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 15:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've full-protected those two templates - they're both used a lot and don't need to be edited regularly. Hut 8.5 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be a copycat vandal. The original seemed pretty genuine when he said he was leaving. Ziggy Sawdust 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Avril vandal N Fillion's biggest fan (talk · contribs) - Various page moves Anonymous101 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anoyn User:91.110.139.152 has repetedly removed the AfD notification from the Gavin Paul Carter article, and is doing so continuly right now. Propose immediate block for a period of time. His initial response to his first warning would seem to indicate a COI. Arzel (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• And I closed the AfD. Didn't seem any point in prolonging it. Black Kite 20:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kingtut_579 -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Resolved--blocked by R. Baley. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

nb. I blocked 72.64.100.150 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for posting the same content at User:R Baley - I presumed it to be a throwaway account. If it returns... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also left a note on Alison's tp; as soon as pages were semi'd another longterm account contributions was used to make the same type of edit (appeared to be a good hand account until then). I would like anyone with checkuser to look into these accounts and see if there are any others related (fyi both of these accounts could be related to the whole grawp haggar thing, see [6]. R. Baley (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a notice at the top of my watchlist with a link to this poll: FritzpollBot creating up to two million new articles, but at the bottom of that poll page is a very recent motion by Fritzpoll to resume discussion in a few days. Perhaps that part of the watchlist notice should be removed for now? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. An editor in Arkansas takes exception to . . . well, to not being a WP:DICK. During the school year from an IP address registered to the University of Arkansas, and over winter and now summer breaks from a series of proximate IP addresses, the editor has continued to undo a series of redirects and to remove maintenance tags. Several of these IPs have been individually blocked, but I thought I’d mention it here to see if a range block would be appropriate or if there’s anything to do other than have a beer sitting nearby when this fellow acts up again. The editor's talk-page comments make clear he/she has no intention of abiding by consensus or contributing anything useful to Wikipedia. A few of the popular targets -- Simon Tam, Eden McCain, Planet Express -- have received temporary semi-protection, although my most recent request for two of them to be semi-protected again was denied.

School IPs:

• 130.184.82.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.184.105.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.184.105.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.184.211.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.184.211.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.184.250.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

More recent (home for break?) IPs:

• 70.178.120.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.178.56.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.178.157.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statements of non-good faith: here and here

So. There it is. --EEMIV (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I want to ask help from an admin regarding user:Moldopodo's behavior. He raised again the issue of Moldovan/Romanian language. I don't wanna get into much recent history or political debates, but they are the essential in understanding the issue. In brief (as Moldovan language and History of the Moldovan language loosely addresse) Moldovan language is a notion rooted in the Soviet Union policy of inventing a new ethnicity for a territory he annexed during the WW2 from Romania. A Stalinist thesis, it is reused by the current ruler party of Moldova (the Communists - no others than the former Soviet elite) in order to play an obscure political game: after Moldova, a former Soviet state, declared independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union, in order to maintain the power, they've (re)invented a common enemy of the people: Romania, who allegedly wants to destroy a fictive Moldovan ethnicity, has "imperialist" dreams, and so on. So, they've introduced in the Constitution the phrase: "the state language is Moldovan". This has created a debate in the Moldovan society that is still ongoing. This is the broad picture as brief as I can present it.

Sustaining the above are quotes from authoritative scholar sources I've gathered two years ago for a similar "debate": (Linguapax Institute, Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica, NY University School of Law and others). In fact Moldovan is no different than Romanian (same grammar, same orthography, same lexicon, diff accents of speakers). It has its ISO code because ISO doesn't make politics (especially when it's about a former Soviet republic, heh), and when a country asks for, it is given. But even the Academy of Sciences of Moldova calls the language Romanian, and has addopted the orthographic rules of the Romanian Academy. No one, excepting part of Moldovan politicians, call it Moldovan. It's like me claiming now I write in Inglanda language or else (btw, sorry for my mistakes) and asking you to believe it.

Once in a while there is some excessively disturbing user raising the Communist theses: starting a Mo wiki, or renaming the language Moldovan/Romanian etc. This time user:Moldopodo is doing his wars - starting from meta, where he proposes renaming the wiki from ro to mo-ro [24], passing through 3RR as in [25] (1st of June) although he was told he was making a mistake on his talk page user talk:moldopodo. More, he's going to other wikis to ask for help: [26]. I know it's a lot to read, this thing exploding into large debates, but this time Moldopodo is intentionally not addressing the arguments, is reverting edits, is pushing his POV against all evidence. For me is sad that this notion (Moldovan language) exists, but it's a fact, and it must appear on WP as it is. The same, it's not a controversial issue, because independent prestigious scholar sources explain its nature: a political instrument (all from Western literature). They too must appear in WP as objective POVs, explaining its deceptive and manipulatory nature. Finally, it's not an unresolved issue, because I've not heard of scientific facts being ruled by law. You can't compare a political decision with a scientific conclusion. When they contradict you usually have some casualties (but let's don't get melodramatic, if we can). Here all independent analyses explain the nature of the Moldovan language as an artificial political construct.

I don't know how should I "fill a complain" in this case, but I think an admin should be aware of the destructive behavior of user:moldopodo and take the appropiate measures. Thank you.

PS: For anyone interested in recent history, this is a good subject. Two wings of evil haunted the 20st century. Both were political "isms". One exploded and rapidly consumed itself. The other one kept half of Europe in dark for half of century. Both ideologies (dressed religiously: the messianic figure, the enemy, the good and the bad guys, the ideal, the confrontation). Both screwing up people minds. Both killing millions. I've lived one, and still fighting its demons it seems. It's sad. adriatikus | talk 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) is the subject of an editing restriction, placed in March and reviewed in early May. Since the May review, he has accused me of racism (again), taken a huff and removed all my comments from his talk page, including more accusations of racism, and has now decided to stalk me and assist the banned User:DavidYork71 in his trolling/sockpuppetry campaign on Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, which I was attempting to revert. He was warned about his stalking yesterday by User:Jayron32, but has decided to continue regardless. Can somebody please hit him with a cluehammer? Leithp 11:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan is clearly a single purpose account and a POV warrior with a history of chronic incivility and personal attacks. Why we need a user like this? May I suggest a permanent community imposed ban on this user. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked on the basis of their violation of WP:NPOV and questionable interpretation of WP:V, as well as their edit warring and incivility with other users who attempt to edit according to those policies. As I have previously commented on DM's topic ban and attempted to resolve some of the issues in my capacity as an administrator I invite review of my actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the block was made in right mesaure, this initial thread by Leithp sums it up nicely. Good block. Rudget (Help?) 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the block. Seems appropriate to me. Coldmachine^Talk 12:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be operating from a specific agenda, and may even be well-intentioned, i.e. may think he's being a courageous warrior. The wrong kind of warrior for wikipedia, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the block. We do not need a user like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support block. I told him that his actions were inappropriate, and warned him not to repeat it. He repeated it anyways. He was told of the consequences, and felt that he was willing to accept those consequences. He showed that by continuing the disruption. This is fully justified, based on both his long history of disruption and on the imediate refusal to stop being disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of his latest comments in his talk page:

• "Thank you Klansman; I wasn't expecting anything less. Now off you go and burn some crosses and lynch some colored who disagree with your view point." [27]
• "What a surprise, you self-confessed racist bigot!" [28]

I think it's time to permablock him and protect his talk page. --Ragib (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks issued while under a block are typically interpreted as begging for a longer block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Following further edits at Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein on the DavidYork71/DemolitionMan theme, I have S-Protected the article. Leithp 09:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An unacceptable maneuvre in the absence of vandalism. Where is the vandalism? An why do you continue to suppress and evade on your own talkpage??85.0.233.240 (talk)

167.206.79.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 63.103.93.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are engaged in a long-term coordinated campaign of disruption focused on an effort to get Wikipedia to list a person named Edward Eways, of Port Chester, New York, as "notable." Within the last hour, 71.251.29.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has joined them. Earlier User:Shanson102 was also involved in this, but this registered user has not edited recently. (Note that I cannot see the deleted contributions by these users, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Eways gives some clues.) Additionally, there is ongoing garden-variety vandalism by 167.206.79.227, most recently to the article Pothole.

Warnings and appeals to reason have been ineffective, unless one counts their deposits on my talk page as an effect. It seems that stronger measures are needed to get these users to stop wasting other users' time. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put all these editors on my watchlist. --Rodhullandemu 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These users are unfazed by warnings. User 63.103.93.62 has re-added Eways' name to the Port Chester article and has posted more unsigned blather on my talk page. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours on the basis that less than three hours after he gave me an undertaking to cease and desist, he was up to the same antics. --Rodhullandemu 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now salted the page itself, to prevent recreation. -- The Anome (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC) We will continue are efforts to prove Ed Eways notabilty...We have recruited much more users..AP

-Pilotguy contact tower 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[29]

Probably not serious, but reporting it here per WP:SUICIDE Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Nakon 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SUICIDE#Treat all claims seriously. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see both of you missed the "jk" at the bottom of the diff. Also, essays are neither policy nor guidelines and do not have to be followed. Nakon 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, using popups and it was way below the fold. still... xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RBI takes precedence here. I don't think this will be a problem. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They're both essays... not sure how one takes precedence. But in like of the "jk" thing, I suppose you're right. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time, I would make sure to make a note on the IP's page. In the small chance they look at it, they might think twice about screwing around next time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is messing around with User:ArcAngel userpage a keeps vandalising it. Not sure if this is the right place but I thought I would tell an admin about the problem user. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Warned. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

After checking his contributions, I went to block Dpwiki indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, but Spellcast had beaten me to it. Neıl 龱 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AzaToth Spammer has threatened to kill User:azaToth for blocking them and because Spammer supposedly has the IP address of AzaToth he says he will kill him because he is only a few blocks away from him. Assistance required perhaps a block on AzaToth Spammer and a little visit from the Police in the area might be in order dont you think? I know that in the UK the police take death threats very seriously I dont know about the USA. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked as a vandal-only account. Since AzaToth lives in Sweden, I don't think the threat is exactly credible. — iridescent 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I heard France... or was it Luxembourg? Seriously though, if you use Wikipedia long enough some ass hat will come along and try to intimidate you with threats of violence. I recommend that anyone who uses Wikipedia keep their personal information private, including where you live. _{1 != 2} 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on his excellent grammar and spelling, I think it's not an extreme probability that he is even able to spell my name. _→AzaToth 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This notice is about the Barack Obama Article. Various editors have been continually trying to push more of the Bill ayers, Wright, and Rezco controversies into the main page. A variety, though small handful of editors have been trying to keep the article as concise and clear as possible without going too far into the election debate issues by instead including blue links to the controversies themselves. However, a variety of editors, too many to name, have continually been pushing to expand various sections to include non-Barack information that pertains to the controversies.

At least one to two of the editors who are pushing for more info on the controversies have themselves stated that they are against Obama and are trying to show the "dark underside" of Obama.

Currently there is an edit war between the two sides over a massive rewrite to include a lot more information on the controversies. I am asking for a couple admins to step in and help iron out the situation and hopefully put this circular debate to rest. Brothejr (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While the fact that some editors state they support, etc.----whereas others state they don't support, etc.----the subject of the political bio seems unremarkable; that said, it's absolutely true that BOTH camps should try and overcome these biases in their editing. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some disruptive edit warring and there is also a content debate on what information to add to the article concerning how much we should say about various controversial associates/friends of Obama. Some of us on the "inclusionist" side think there's a WP:OWN problem here, and we hope to post requests for more comment at Village Pump and other boards, then we hope to come to some consensus with a larger population of editors more amenable to compromise. Personally warning the warriors would be helpful, and hopefully we can still edit the article this week. We really need both administrator and editor eyes on articles that are this important. Noroton (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to offer some background to assist interested administrators. It is important to note that most of the content warring concerns perceived WP:BLP violations, as well as edits resulting in undue weight. The "inclusionist" faction described above wish to expand the existing text to include tangential or controversial details about individuals with whom Barack Obama has been associated with in order to "inform" readers of "all the facts". Since the BLP is written in summary style (with several sub-articles and related articles), the inclusion of these details is seen by many editors has violating WP:WEIGHT. An example of the problem is the desire by some to include details about Bill Ayers' association with the Weather Underground, complete with inflammatory descriptions like "unrepentant terrorist bomber". In keeping with WP:SS, such details already exist in the linked-to sub article Bill Ayers election controversy and the BLP Bill Ayers. I hope you find this background information useful, and I thank you for your interest. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise: saying "Unrepentant terrorist bomber" is maybe too much, but mention that "Obama's associate is controversial for having been in the Weather Underground" seems OK, even desirable. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please note that there was never any complaint or action from any of these complaining editors, when negative details about Obama's political rivals sat undisturbed in this article for months. After all, those details about other people made Obama look good. But the moment negative details about Obama's close friends and political allies began to appear, suddenly these complaining editors started finding something wrong with including details about other people, because they make Obama look bad. The article is a complete whitewash by editors who obviously want Obama to be the Democratic nominee, and the next president of the United States. It reads as though it was written by Obama's campaign manager. They put Wikipedia policy through contortions and gymnastics to justify what they're doing, which is WP:OWNing the article. They make false accusations of racism and sockpuppetry. I agree that admin attention is needed, but they're telling only half of the truth here and distorting it, much like what they're doing with the article itself. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were the only person who noticed all of these negative details about Obama's associates, I wouldn't even be asking to include them. But federal prosecutors have noticed the negative details, all of the mainstream news media have noticed these negative details, and there has been substantial controversy about these negative details that has profoundly altered the landscape of the presidential campaign. Before this controversy, Obama won Super Tuesday, then won 11 primaries in a row. After this controversy started, Obama lost four out of six primaries, some of them by 2-to-1 margins. Notable commentary from mainstream news sources finds this remarkable.

Readers of this article deserve to know why these people are controversial, and why the news media have found them to be controversial. They deserve the whole truth, not the half-truths that Scjessey and Brothejr and their friends are peddling. It is not a violation of WP:BLP or any other policy to include facts reported by mainstream news sources with fact-checking departments. But it is a violation of WP:NPOV to systematically delete any criticism of Obama, or any material that might make him look bad, when there are multiple, solid gold reliable sources. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article in question is -- wait for it -- Barack Obama, not his associates. If you want to do the work of the US Department of Justice -- I can't imagine any other reason for that odd bit of name-dropping -- perhaps you ought to sign up for the Federal Bar and the US Civil Service. In the meantime, I don't think that an online encyclopedia's article on a particular subject is the proper venue for a proxy propaganda war through means of loosely connected subjects. Besides, the links to the loosely connected subjects are still there -- or are you trying to force people to read those? --Calton | Talk 03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Associates of Obama shouldn't be given undue weight, it's true. Nonetheless, Kossack's talk about the Feds is in buttressment of the Rezco controversy's notability; while Carlton's defense----via attacking Kossack through speculating about Kossack's psychological needs/whatever to play at Kossack's being a Fed----is but a distraction. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For both talk page discussions AND rules' breakage investigations, it's quite helpful to specify, Who? What? Where? How? When? I suggest we respectfully hand back this complaint (essentially: "People we can't mention specifically, there's so many of them, for ganging up together to edit the article differently than we would (after its being discussed on the talkpage). Please sanction them.") and ask it be resubmitted. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, Bill Ayers was a preschool teacher for 20 years after he left the Weathermen... And yet that isn;t mentioned at all. I only bring this up to show the rediculousness of continuing the American political debate in the article in question. The information about Ayers is relevent in his article, but in Obama's article? Obama sits on dozens of boards on dozens of organizations, and yet we don't give any weight in the article to those probably hundreds of associates; the push here seems to be solely to include those associates whose behavior at any point in their life could cast Obama in a negative light; as such, mentioning them and their activities (it should be noted in Ayers case, activities 40 years ago) is exactly what WP:UNDUE is about; the inclusion of these associations is about hand-picking people and facts that will cast the subject in a negative light. Sourced or not, its undue weight, and should not be part of the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedians job to figure out what deserves to be notable, only to observe what is notable, as decided by the respective campaigns and the media (who've decided that candidate-for-executive-office Obama's possible sympathies with Ayers are fair game to inquire about.) (And, yes. Ayers should most rightly be termed something like "education activist Bill Ayers (a former..."[blah blah], as Jayron32 mentions.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) If Wikipedians THEMSELVES came to the conclusion that e/g info about Wright SHOULDN'T be notable, the article could end up reading something along these lines: "Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright became controversial and in May Obama resigned from his congregation." But would this be properly encyclopedic? — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of giving undue weight to Obama's associates. But Scjessey, Brothejr and the other Obama fanboys (by the way, I voted for Obama myself in the primaries) want their shady activities to have no weight at all. Not even one mention. It was hypocritical of them to allow negative material about Obama's political rivals to sit untouched in the article for months, and then claim that negative details about other people are "irrelevant" and "inappropriate" when added for Obama's political allies. This article needs an extremely brief explanation of why all of the national news media find Obama's associations with Rezko, Wright and Ayers to be controversial.

The Obama fanboys are diligently seeking to banish this material to satellite articles, and it has been proven that virtually no one reads such articles. Anyone seeking to find out information about Barack Obama deserves to find everything, the good and the bad, in summary form in the Barack Obama article.

Also, the false accusations of racism and sockpuppetry are clear violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA and must be stopped. They poison the atmosphere of collaborative editing. Editors should make a greater effort to assume good faith.

Here we have a presumptive presidential nominee (Barack Obama) closely associating for many years with an unrepentant bomb-tossing terrorist (William Ayers), a bigoted, America-hating preacher (Jeremiah Wright) and a crooked political fundraiser (Tony Rezko). Now imagine a hypothetical case: that another presumptive presidential nominee (John McCain) had associated this closely for so many years with an unrepentant bomb-tossing terrorist (Timothy McVeigh), a bigoted, America-hating preacher (Fred Phelps) and a crooked political fundraiser (Jack Abramoff). Does anyone believe that the national news media wouldn't have pounced, and that we wouldn't see negative details about McVeigh, Phelps and Abramoff in McCain's Wikipedia bio, because the national news media were discussing them? Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing to add here, we've been noticing that while there have been different editors trying to push this issue, when they do edit the article, they all seem to be writing the same thing (I.E. the wording is exactly the same). Plus when one gets close to the WP:3RR that one stops and another jumps in to revert saving the other. These are just observations. Plus it seems as if the editors who are pushing to include all this information have reverted to their same edits again, ignoring any comments from the Admins. Brothejr (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

When your reverts gets reverted the restored text does tend to look similar. Very clever of you to notice. Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If ANYTHING requires action here, it is the words and actions of Brothejr, who persists in personal attacks and name calling against other editors with whom he does not agree. Here, he's trying to allude without saying that all opposing editors are sock puppet accounts - if you look at the Obama discussion, he does the same thing. As well, he, and other editors like scjessey, who demand that we seek consensus, delete all edits that they don't agree with without consideration and absolutely refuse to see any point of view other than their ownFovean Author (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here Brothejr has again accused me of sockpuppetry. LotLE did the same thing at WP:3RR. It is a personal attack. This falsely accuses me of committing a WP policy violation that would result in me being banned. Admins should consider 24-hour blocks of Scjessey and Brothejr for edit warring, personal attacks and mischaracterizations, with full explanations on their respective User Talk pages. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to abstain from responding to Kossack4Truth's comments due to the fact he has called anyone who has disagreed with him a lier/whitewasher/Obama supporter/Etc, however various people have raised suspicions about him due to his types of edits and also how he works with other editors. (I.E. he never seems to break the 3RR rule before someone else jumps in to continue on his reverts, or someone else reverts until they get close to the 3RR rule and then Kossack4Truth jumps in to continue the reverts. I forgot which rule/guide this covers, but it seems as they engage in a revert war to push people out who are trying to keep the article NPOV, so they can continue their reverts.)

I would also like to point out that currently, various editors including Kossack4Truth, have been completely rewriting the Obama article to completely cover ever controversy ever related to the man with in depth detail. I could list all the various wiki rules and guidelines that this breaks, but you get my point. The users who are pushing these edits have already shown they will ignore any admin comments on the situation and I feel something more needs to be done to bring this article back to a Feature Article status. Brothejr (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Jumping in to continue reverts: hmm, ya mean these same tactics, when employed by this biography's ostensible owners?
2. Could list all the various wiki rules and guidelines: well, if edit-warring exclusionists and inclusionists throughout WP agreed on the exact applications of regs/formalized guidelines in these cases, such vague allusions would mean something but as it is, unfortunately not. — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently created an article at Keyra on Keyra Augustina. It was listed for deletion soon after I created it but I removed the notice as I had not even had a chance to add references. Now it has been deleted, the reason being given it is a recreation of Keyra Augustina. I believe what has happened is some muppet has created a vastly innappropriate article at Keyra Augustina which was deleted. Then I have come along and created a good, cited article at Keyra which has subsequently been blindly deleted as a recreation of the former, when really is should have gone through WP:AfD. Could someone please unprotect and restore the page so it can be added to, and if need be listed for deletion. Let the community have a say please. Thankyou. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, my not go ahead and start the article on a subpage to show what your looking on doing, to show the admins :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Four references (5 links) were given at Keyra, every one was to a 404 page. This article was no more appropriate than the Keyra Augustina one.-gadfium 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take Tinkleheimer's advice. And Gadfium the links worked fine on my computer. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked; you had mistyped them by adding a vertical bar to each one. None are to reliable sources, however.-gadfium 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105 persists in edit-warring and refuses to even consider a remotely flexible approach to discussion. Frequently noted by Admins for his incivility and uncompromising attitude ([34], [35]), the User insists on pushing his POV in the Belgrade Offensive article based solely on his reported "years of experience" and total intellectual superiority over other concerned editors. This is true to such an extent, that he has violated WP:3RR [36] in removing sources that contradict him (sources like Britannica and the US Library of Congress) [37] simply because he personally, based again on his "years of experience", does not consider them valid or "true". Instead, he insists on constantly replacing these refs with a quote (from a book he apparently owns) that does not at all address the issue (see [38]), calling it "one hell of a lot better". Frankly, I do not know anymore if any source whatsoever that contradicts him would be acceptable to this person. User:Woody is an Admin familiar with this matter, but I'd appreciate a general response from the community, thanks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR violation on Belgrade_Offensive. Note that Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has initiated an rfc for the disputed page, so appears to be attempting dialog. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes he proposed the RfC, probably to spite me because I said I would do it (just above on the talkpage). Perhaps he perceived it as a "victory" of some sort if he beat me to it. In any case, dialog has been attempted in the past, to great extent and with little result. The reason for this is that the User simply refuses to accept sources which contradict him, constantly commenting on the intelligence of those who suggest that he should. Without turning this into a content discussion, I will cite a few, more obvious, examples of the User's attitude toward sources:

The point of contention in the first example is the depiction of the operation in question as one conducted by a "joint force" of two independent Armies. The source I brought forth, namely the US Library of Congress, states, citing "information from Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919-1945, Arlington, Virginia, 1976", that:
"...Soviet troops crossed the border on October 1, and a joint Partisan-Soviet force liberated Belgrade on October 20."
Upon the addition of this source, my intelligence was criticized by the User, who later removed it and used the following citation to prove that the Armies were not cooperating, but that the Red Army was in total control:
"The Russians had no interest in the German occupation forces in Greece and appear to have had very little interest in those retiring northwards through Yugoslavia...Stalin was content to leave to Tito and the Bulgarians the clearing of Yugoslav territory from the enemy"

The next example, is the use of the English language adjective "Soviet" to describe units of the Red Army. Out of some strange POV, User:Mrg3105 reverted the use of the word and demanded I use the adjective "Red Army" as "Soviet" is in his own personal view, incorrect. He insisted that I use, for example, "Red Army 57th Army" and not "Soviet 57th Army". The dictionary source I provided (dictionary.com) was, of course, "wrong" in his view, and he threatened with revert-war if I did not stop using that adjective. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My alleged incivility is only related to my insistence for use of quality sources in articles. The so called deleted sources were substandard, and User:DIREKTOR refused to produce others. I replaced them with a reputable source,and a direct quote from it that substantially opposes the POV DIREKTOR holds on the subject. It could be I am wrong, but I am so far unable to find a sources that directly supports the POV DIREKTOR holds, and neither does he apparently.

In any case, an RfChist has been requested.

The 3RR has not been in effect because only two reversion were made by myself, DIREKTOR already being limited to one revert per day for previous edit-warring.

User:Woody is in fact mediating in an unrelated dispute between myself and User:Buckshot06 which I hope can be resolved amicably, eventually.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only suggest that the specifics of the article dispute be resolved during the RfC on the article talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to support User:Direktor's request. Mrg3015 has a history of foul, abusive language, edit warring, and general incivility. I raised concerns about his behaviour on this board before, as what I usually get when he disagrees with me is some variation on the following (original is at Talk:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II#Kharkov operations):

Want to be sure I understand your intent here Mrg. You've change all the battles of Kharkov to their numeric numbering. Here you have a number of redlinks with different names, but referring to the same operations. You've been the primary editor on this page, so I wanted to ask you what you'd think of me inserting links to those operations - since all four of them do have articles. Buckshot06(prof) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this. YOU go and buy Keitel's fucking book in Irving's fucking translation and then YOU write the fucking articles based on that and see how same they look ok. You are so big on talk, but will not spend the money on the books, but the books have nothing. They are written for a perspective of a very senior officer in Berlin. SO, the articles you refer to are NOT same as those on this list. They are the German POV base on a single source, and I will tag them as such when I find the template. Then they will sit there for another year as stubs until someone tries to improve them using Glantz's Kharkov 1942 book. THIS entire sorry issue with these three articles is the sort of bullshit that drives people away from Wikipedia. Enjoy. I have taken all three off my watch list. All yours now, or whoever.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Buckshot06 does not usually get this sort of response. The extremity of my response was due to long discussion that went on about the viability of basing the titles of three articles on a single source which is unreliable, unsupported by other sources and produced by a discredited author David Irving. The use of expletives were directed at the said book by Wilhelm Keitel and David Irving who had been proven wrong and bias by two courts of law. The article Buckshot06 refers to is titled Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, and therefore lists operations not because they are same, but because they are those conducted by the Red Army and named accordingly. Wilhelm Keitel could not have know their names during the war, and displays this ignorance in his book, which is written from a Nazi point of view (written during the war). I on the other hand use English translations of the operations as found in the books by David Glantz, a recognised authority on the subject. Why should I abandon works of Mr. Glantz to make an exception for three operations as interpreted by David Irving on Buckshot06's insistence? In any case, I would propose that the case/s be moved to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for arbitration. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No editors should ever get receive abusive responses like that, especially from long-established editors like yourself. It is important that you recognise that this discussion is not about the validity of your sources - it is about your increasingly uncivil and agressive behaviour. Disagreements over sources can, and should, be handled respectfully on the relevant talk pages and, if necessary, noticeboards. Instead you routinely resort to personal abuse and edit wars and are all to often unwilling to accept the consensus of knowledgeable and experienced editors. This is a long running and worsening pattern of behaviour and it is not acceptable. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Nick, I can express my opinion about books if I want to in any way I want to, particularly those written by confirmed nazis and criminals. I did not hurl personal abuse at Buckshot06, unlike he did.

I have certainly seen other "knowledgeable and experienced editors" express themselves in same terms about sources, administrators even.

Not sure where you came in on this, but all my "behaviour" has been about sources.

Do you know why Nick? Because I edit in the "danger zone". I have the temerity to want to document the history of the Eastern Front during the Second World War, and not the Australian Navy. For that I have to deal with other editors who base their edits on selective use of whatever sources they can get off the Internet. How's that for frustration-builder? If I did that, I can convince you Japan won the war in the Pacific, and all within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I bet you will come up with a few expletives faced with this.

Now that I'm aware of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I will take it there. No "knowledgeable and experienced editor" has ever suggested I do so until 19 May, and I missed it then, however better late then never (was too late by then anyway). Certainly Buckshot06 never made the suggestion. Doesn't say much about his willingness to mediate. All I have seen is him vengefully oppose everything I do, and that was after months of stalking me in his self-appointed task of teaching me English. Are you sure you have all the history on this Nick?

Consensus is not accepted, but agreed on. Its not like voting where 20 editors say no, and its done with (though I had seen that staged by Eurocopter). You have a degree in politics, so no doubt aware of vote stacking. In Wikipedia the community decided that not only do they need to say no, but also give a half-reasonable reason for it. It is preferable that the reasons given are backed up by some reference to accepted practice, sources, etc. What has Buckshot06 offered? He simply insisted I use an accepted name for an article although its source-of-origin it was based on, actually failed to describe the events depicted in the article.

I talked to Buckshot06 in the article talk, in my talk, in his talk pages. You think that outburst was a result of one reply to his one question? There are a dozen articles-worth of exchange between us on the subject, and same with DIREKTOR. However, I am here to edit not to engage in talkfests. Not only that, but I do quality edits. Almost no online links. No stubs; I have improved several stubs to start that were not even my own. I am guilty of one thing - insistence on quality.

So, I said to Buckshot06, if he thinks that the source he wants to use for the article is so great, he can write the article. Have you read the articles...before I expanded them? If you had, you would know why I said what I said. Has Buckshot worked on the articles since? Well, he replaced the name I suggested, derived from Russian sources, in the intro of one, and replaced Wilhelm Keitel, the actual source of the German single source name with "German historians". Is Buckshot06 unaware that David Irving, who purports to be a historian, is in fact British?

I also advised DIREKTOR that I am unable to, at this time, provide a source and he can do the research himself. He is instead asking me a question I had answered weeks ago. Who took command in the field when Red Army and Yugoslav partisans cooperated? Red Army off course. No Red Army lieutenant would take orders from an officer of any other Army, never mind a partisan one. SMERSH ensured that. To even suggest that a Yugoslav officer fresh out of the woods could take over command of units using combined arms (infantry, artillery, armour and aircraft), and do so in Russian, is just not something any military historian would seriously contemplate. And yet, I AM ASKED FOR A SOURCE. Can you suggest where I can get a source to support what is blatantly obvious?

In any case, neither decided to take my advice.

BTW, I did not see you stepping in and saying "take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Where you just enjoying the "show" from the sidelines?

Here is the funny thing, you probably knew about the issues related to Eastern European editing like the Digwuren case. So did Buckshot06. No one from the Project ever warned me, ever came in on the discussions and said, take it to the noticeboards, tried to mediate, naddah, zilch, 0, nothing, no support from the vaunted "knowledgeable and experienced editors" like yourself, until I am driven to destruction in frustration from having to deal with people who base entire articles on a single word. My "increasingly uncivil and aggressive behaviour" only says one thing about me, that I am not a "saint". Are you Nick? If there was proper coordination on the project, and if coordinators and other "knowledgeable and experienced editors" actually were willing to intervene and say something, you may have had something to talk about, but neither you, not anyone else did (at least not until 19 May), except to threaten me with a block, and one of the present coordinators was in on the "fun" in an earlier dispute, so don't tell me about "knowledgeable and experienced editors".

I think you are entirely bias to offer comments here due to your close relationship with Buckshot06 in editing who seems to be just spiteful from issues that have accumulated over time. They are his issues, not mine. All I want is that when people edit, they use reliable sources that are in context and relevant. Full stop. I seem to remember Wikipedia policy to this effect. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, mrg3105 approached me offsite for advice. He appears to be genuine in his desire to resolve this situation, and he's frustrated. I've suggested judicious strikethroughs on the more colorful terms and mediation to settle the content side of these disagreements. In fairness to him, he didn't know he was allowed to strikethrough at ANI (he'd regretted a couple of words that he posted about five minutes after they went up, but had been under the impression it was wrong to alter his own posts). So I hope the disputing parties here take no offense where it wasn't (much) intended, and refocus on working out the sourcing and related issues. I've suggested the Chicago Manual of Style to settle one point that doesn't appear to be covered in Wikipedia's style guidelines, and impartial review by an uninvolved multilingual editor for a non-English source. That should go a little way toward breaking the deadlock and formal mediation may help the rest. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The sooner that the focus of these discussions moves from the personalities involved to the actual encyclopedic issues the better. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Werndabot has gone crazy and is recursively archiving talk pages -- Gurch (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Have blocked the bot - will leave a note for Werdna. WjBscribe 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it stopped several hours ago - a block probably wasn't necessary but best to play safe as I don't know when it's scheduled to run and whether Werdna knows about the issue. WjBscribe 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It runs every six hours, so the next run would have been due in 25 minutes, and would have created yet another level deep of "/Archive 1" subpages -- Gurch (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the problem was limited to User talk:Brews ohare, and seems to have been caused by the recent addition of the {{werdnabot}} template within one of the sections being archived. Still, the bot definitely shouldn't do that, even if the original cause was user error. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the nested archives and reverted the original archive page (without the misplaced tag that caused all this). This means it should be safe to unblock the bot now, though we might as well wait for Werdna to handle it himself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jammy0002 (talk · contribs)

Hello,

I'd like to report the above users relating to comments here and here. I feel that they are completely inappropriate. I was being bold in revamping the project and expanding the scope, as it was tiny, and various users commented. In fact lots quit. I then proceeded to make tha changes, having lots of old pages deleted as they were not needed. Electrical went and re-created the newsletter, and I discussed with him that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia as it was, as it had things such as cheatcodes, unsourced news about a game, and a list of participants, a lot of which were no longer involved.

Thank you,

BG7even 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I apologise if this is the wrong place: please direct me if this is the case. BG7even 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi One your supposed to alert me of a ANI report on me. Second, What did i say? Third, You don`t run the project it would be violation of WP:OWN. Forth of all You Said on Jammy`s Talk "I have been the only member who has done anything for the project with the exception of a few "founding fathers"." wel I joined after you and I have made majority of my contributions to the project. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And about the newspaper you didn't discus, you told me. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Majority of Contributions" - what does that mean? When did I say that I owned it? I aplogise for adding you on here, I have reviewed the posts and it was wrong. BG7even 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Majority of my Contributions, You delared ownership here. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In a rather depressing trend I've noticed nowadays, there's been a lack of actual discussion between these users outside of edit summaries. Second, the comments regarding "seniority" are utterly wrong as it is overly-bureaucratic. However, a list where users add themselves at the bottom is a lot more usual from what I see. But I agree with the point about not having 26 level-4 headings. In short:

1. WP:BOLD is policy and WP:BRD has been followed somewhat here (without much discussion, or discussion that turned into a dictatorship/taking-over debate).
2. The Wikiproject seems fairly inactive, but one does not need a Wikiproject to work.
3. An apology and more discussion would seem the way forward from here.

I would ask all the parties, including Bluegoblin7 (BG7even), however, to stop imposing their views upon each other by reverts, and work things out using discussion, following the spirit of dispute resolution. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I never declared ownership - lead editor and ownership are completely different. Your going on about seniority, which as x42bn6 has said is overly beauracratic - presicely the reason for doing it alphabetically. Can we revert to that version for now, and then discuss. BG7even 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What you said there does imply ownership. You should have asked the members whether they'd be interested in a revamp of the project but being bold is good too; however, you encountered resistance which is why you should start discussing. As for the list, I think that the non-alphabetical list is just fine, as I don't believe it implies seniority - it does denote the order of which users joined if people add themselves to the bottom but everyone is allowed to add their name anywhere they want, and there's no seniority for being at the top of the list. You come across as someone who jumped straight into the Wikiproject and attempted to do lots of major things - a good thing but not everyone's cup of tea and if it is a really big change, then consensus-seeking becomes vital. Bureaucracy refers to seniority and ranks - consider everyone equal within the Wikiproject unless it warrants some sort of leader or project coordinator. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

reset Which is (sort of) what i've been saying. I did say what I was going to do, and everyone seemed fine with it, except the scope issues, which I did discuss and we have agreed to cover anything to do with the Sim. Electrical was the one who bought up seniority, by saying the one at the top is the most senior (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sims/members2) and I was saying no. It appears that this is going to remain like this, so I have re-organised with an alphabetical one - no arguments there about seniority. Another option would be to use bullets rather than numbers, but that would I feel still lead some members to believe that they are more important than another. Also, the use of {{user}} makes it look more organised, and also allows for easy links to talk pages, without having to fish through customised signatures for links that sometimes aren't even there! I also don't see why everyone is making a fuss over a project page and members list - it would be time much better spent if they were actually editing! BG7even 16:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, consider it thus: There is no need for seniority in such a small Wikiproject, although coordination could be a good idea if the project gets larger (say WP:CHICAGO). As a result, there is no problem with a numbered or bulleted list. There is a genuine concern that having so many level-4 headings is a waste of space especially considering the project has so few members. There's no need for additional "fairness" if there was no implication of seniority in the first place. The above users have genuine concerns about how you have seemingly attempted to take over the project while you have genuine concerns about the fact that the project is dead and wish to revamp it. To me, all this points to lots of apologies and more discussion, and pointers to WP:OWN and WP:DR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in this have I broken WP:OWN may I ask? The project, as you said, was dead, so I tried to revamp it. I admit that 26 level four headings was stupid, I changed it initially to just those we were using, and then to using the ; sign. I have since reverted to headings, however it is now in a table - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sims/members2. Thank you, BG7even 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[39], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sims/Archive 2#VOTE gives the implication of ownership. Enthusiasm is good but please avoid being dismissive to others' comments. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask how? I was agreeing with what was said - as it was what I had said after a while and indeed what I had been doing as I had been building the project. BG7even 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I love the idea of using a bot to create articles on real places with proper sourcing, the test cases created so far by User talk:Fritzpoll have improper sourcing and include a spam link to Microsoft. This is unacceptable. I tried noting it on an example and was reverted, so I am saying so here. What would Microsoft pay for 4 million articles that say

*[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx Search for ______ in the MSN Encarta atlas]

WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I thought we had a non-vendor-specific map/geoinfo link for geographical places, that goes to a page full of options from Google to M$ to free projects? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified Friztpoll xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that needs to not be there. The NGA reference is somewhat unhelpful too, because it requires the reader to do their own search. Black Kite 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I was just thinking the same thing about this generic spammy link. Plus, I can't find our example town, Aju, Burma, in Encarta. WODUP 00:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... if there were a way to hot-link it, it would be nice, but if it's just a general "search for {{blah}} here" it's not that useful. We're better off using tools:~magnus/geo/geohack.php or tools:~dispenser/maps.php (whichever one is better). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, or use {{coord}} with the display=title parameter which links directly to geohack. Orderinchaos 07:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's already in the infobox, per User:Fritzpoll/GeoBot/Example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note User:Andrwsc's change to the flag template. Might as well get it set in the template now rather than 2 million articles later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So is the Encarta spam link being removed? I have a feeling the originators of this plan do not want to remove it, given their lack of response. Even though it is useless as geohack is directly linked to in the infobox. Neıl 龱 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of response is because it's a workday, and I only just logged in during lunch! :) Yeah, remove it, or rather, one of us can go through and remove it. It was meant to take you directly to a map of the place on the Encarta map - I based it on a sample page I was given to work with by the editors who had the original idea. Clearly doesn't work, so we'll remove it. As you can see from the page itsefl, an emended proposal is in the works, and someone has pointed out to me a template that I can use to directly reference the GNS data. The {{flag}} thing has also been implemented per a line dropped to my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. Neıl 龱 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is being edited by a series of single-purpose accounts with identical agendas and editing histories, trying to give Greer a false appearance of legitimacy and make his claims of having ways to violate the laws of physics seem valid.

The accounts concerned are: User:Schouten tjeerd, User:Dancingeyes, and User:I-netfreedOm. I-netfreedOm has been attacking me for reverting their edits, as well as claiming that I am a vandal for preserving anonymity by editing by DHCP, and has been blocked once before. Please stop this. 131.215.220.163 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a link to this thread at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, which I think is a better place for it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments on the Fringe Theories page.~~ Dancingeyes (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

At minimum this section [40] of the article seems to contain blatant advertising, as well as links to sites that are purely promotional. I am really not sure how to deal with such a problem. (If it were the whole article I would nominate it for deletion.) Also, I see nothing in the article that establishes notability. Perhaps an AfD would be justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: moved here from WP:AIV as a better location for discussion. Black Kite 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract (talk · contribs · count) - vandalism after recent release of block. Abtract was blocked for harrassing and stalking myself and User:Sesshomaru, and told to stay away from both of us. His block was recently released, and his first actions were to continue to stalk both of [41][42][43] and to falsely tag Meerkat Manor, an article I took to FA and later FT, as needing citations[44]. He also directly contacted me after being told to stop[45]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment - I presume I am allowed to comment ... the so called stalking above comprises an edit to an article I created, and a couple of very reasonable edits to articles I have previously edited and which are on my watchlist; plus a pleasantly worded request on Coll's talk page. How can bringing inline with mos:dab, correcting grammar and asking for citations be in any way wrong? Sadly I am forced back to my original conclusion that Coll is in the midst of a wikibok inspired vendetta against me. Abtract (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abstract has been involved in an extended wikistalking and harassement campaign for weeks now. There is an RfC/U against him, he was warned and blocked by an administrator, and several others also left warning notes on his page, but he is continuing this campaign. As soon as he came back from his block, he began following myself and User:Sesshomaru just as before. He is continuing to falsely tag Meerkat Manor as needing citations, solely to harass me, an article he NEVER edited until he started his stalking and which he is not an actual contributor too. His "pleasantly worded request" on my talk page was anything but[46]. Some quick action would be appreciated, as he is continuing this actions now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I understand the frustration here but both parties are now in violation of WP:3RR on the article. I would suggest that the article be left alone for the moment until this plays out on the board. Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already requested full page protection on the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Already done. I have protected Meerkat Manor for 3 hours, rather than block both parties. Abtract, I would suggest that edit-warring on an article with someone, just after you have come off a block for apparently harrassing that editor is a spectacularly bad idea. You are just asking to be re-blocked, really. (I have also turned down the WP:AN3 report, for obvious reasons). Black Kite 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I am talking to both of these users in a effort to try and get this taken care of and both users to happy editing moods. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While your efforts are appreciated, its really important to look at the whole history here. Abtract claimed he had stopped the stalking, but he did not and was summarily blocked for 31 hours. He frequently tells people he is going to stop disruptive behaviors, edit warring, harrassment, etc, then turns around and does it again within days. He returned from his block and immediately started following his stalking targets around again. This isn't a simple edit war, nor even a real content dispute. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am signing off for a while now, but having looked at the article in question, I do agree that User:Abtract's addition of the {{fact}} tags was extremely dubious, as they were in the lead paragraph and the information appears to be sourced elsewhere in the article. I would suggest that any restoration of those tags (or similar) after the protection expires be met with a block - the previous one was 31 hours. Black Kite 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I hadn't appreciated that fact citations were not needed in the lead so of course I will not be doing that again (how much nicer if Coll had mentioned that) but I will be correcting the grammar inline with advice on the talk page. I would also appreciate someone insisting that Coll look again at her wikibonk induced error in the debacle over the "bitch of an edit". Abtract (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comment on your User talk:Abtract#Your Recent Edits. (linked for other users). I have suggested that you cease editing the article altogether and stay away from Collectonian. collectonian, I suggest the same for you as well, to keep this calm and from blowing up again. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting I stay away from Meerkat Manor or stay away from Abtract? I'm going to presume the latter, which is easy when I have nothing to do with him, nor the area he used to focus on (disambigs), before he started this mess. He is the only one doing the stalking here, and throwing around "wikibonk" as an insult and implied disease (particularly odd considering I have removed that from my user page, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his own actions). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abtract put out a "call for assistance" on his talk page[47] claiming that he is the victim of a "vendetta" and that's its all Sesshomaru and I's fault that he is acting this way. His note carefully ignores much of the evidence noted in the RfC/U, and falsely claims that we never interacted before the episode over his edit summary on an edit to Bitch (disambiguation). He also implies that until both of us apologize to him "gracefully", he will continue these actions. Again, an admin told him that he needed to just stop stalking and harassing[48], and Abtract responded by complaining the response given wasn't what he wanted.[49] During this exchange, he stalked Sesshomaru some more.[50] and, despite having again been told by several editors and admins to just stay away from Meerkat Manor he immediately posted a note after me on the talk page.[51]. And despite numerous notes to stay away, he couldn't resist commenting on my talk page after a technical snafu earlier this morning[52] then reverting a proper moving of his comments from the RfC page to the talk page (per the RfC instructions which note that discussion does not belong in the RfC itself).[53][54] He seems to have only undid this because it was me who move them, as he never objected when another editor did the same earlier in the RfC. Following his usual edit warring pattern, despite my noting that they were moved per the RfC instructions, he reverted again under the claim that its choice not to follow the RfC guidelines.[55][56] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

TheNautilus (talk · contribs)

I looked into his RfC, and after going through a week of diffs, I found very strong evidence that he is completely incapable of working with other editors on Orthomolecular medicine.

The "smoking gun" diff is probably:

“

[Orthomolecular medicine's critics usually have no relevant data but are too dishonet or incompetent to admit it, especially on the vitamin C part]

”

If he classes everyone on the other side as either dishonest or incompetent, then there is no way he is capable of working with others to build an encyclopedia.

He also dismisses all criticism of Orthomolecular medicine out of hand. Here, for instance, TheNautilus claims, in violation of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, that all mainstream material is unreliable and cannot be in the article. Another good example is here, where he writes "vitriolic critics are notable in the general sense, their inflammatory misrepresentions & coverage promoting distortions & scientific misconduct that scientifically & commercially interferes & unfairly deprecates others' legitimate results should be discussed where there is space for balancing quotes, references and reader's (yawn) voluntary continued interest" Finally, in discussing information on Orthomolecular medicine in a chapter in a textbook on Cancer, TheNautilus launches into a series of ad hominem attacks on all researchers whose conclusions he doesn't like. A sample quote dismissing a decade of research: "Many are not sure what the "clinical trials" (~1975-1985) really proved, but hubris, incompetence, systematic bias, scientific misconduct, breeches of social contract & specific promise seem to have had a pretty strong demonstration." More specifically, here's an over the top dismissal of a particular piece of research he doesn't like:

“

That last sentence has never been agreed on and as far as I am concerned, has all the lede legitmacy of a KKK scholar's published scholarly opinion ca 1915-1924 on various ethnicities.

”

Oh, and It had been discussed, actually.

He also has a grand conspiracy theory. Allow me to quickly walk you through it:

Here's a general attack on the American Medical Assosciation. This might be a bit weird, but harmless, right? Wrong. He claims that "many editors [of Orthomolecular medicine *are* AMA members or unfamiliar with the underlying issues that especially concern orthomolecular medicine.]" When asked whether he had evidence of this, he replied:

“

Yes, but presenting that would get me in trouble and be improper for several reasons. See also Doctorfinder. I think that it is easier to confirm that they routinely claim here to be physicians and often have similar views. Also note the "or" part, which is largely my OR, but the Talk pages here (and elsewhere) are my evidence

”

And then claimed that because Tim Vickers edits in ways that he doesn't like, therefore TimVickers must be a member of the evil AMA, and therefore, he must be working for them in their supposed quest to oppress orthomolecular medicine.

I'd suggest a topic ban from all articles related to medicine or alternative medicine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, you are making too long posts again :) Few admins will read this, and much less if the RFCU is still open. You should wait until it closes, and then come here with a short message (lass than 150 words, and 5-8 diffs at most) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a few days old, but an IP brought this edit to my attention. Anything that should/can be done here, or should it just be ignored? Pastordavid (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When you look at the next edit after that was reverted ([57]), I think it can be filed under standard vandalism and safely ignored. Black Kite 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that can be done; editors on IPs (generally speaking) move on after a few hours. The contribution history is so sporadic that there's no way we can do anything about it. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You could issue a warning. Unless you do that very soon after (like an hour), EVula's advice applies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this on the Editor Requests page, and this probably needs admins. Take a look at this diff and this EAR request. Summitrt (talk · contribs) says he's a legal representative of LoJack, who want the information on their frequency that is sourced to FCC.gov removed for legal reasons. rootology (T) 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the individual is also leaving messages to me in the article text. I have already reverted twice. I am refraining from another pointless revert until someone with more authority on Wikipedia can help resolve this conflict. CosineKitty (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the user is an employee of LoJack and is requesting the info be removed for legal reasons, it should be dealt with by OTRS. I left a message on his talk page stating this as well. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the info back[58], since it was published on the web by reliable source FCC. User was already told on his talk page how to make a formal request --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of a secret. The LoJack frequency is in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 47 CFR 90.20.[59]. It's on the FCC web site in the main spectrum allocation table.[60] The allocation is for "Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems" (SVRS). Google can find either of those references easily.

I can see LoJack's problem. Newer systems tend to use cellular data networks, which have so much traffic and so many emitters that stolen vehicle transmissions don't stand out. LoJack, an older system with its own infrastructure, including receivers in police cars, is one of the few users of the SVRS spectrum allocation. Lojack is worried, rightly, that chop shops will start looking for transmissions on the SVRS frequency.

Realistically, the cat is out of the bag. Anybody with access to Google can find this info in five minutes. Still, there's an argument for taking it out of Wikipedia on the grounds that most crooks are too dumb to read through FCC filings, but might figure out from the Wikipedia entry what to look for. --John Nagle (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The dumb criminals wouldn't know how to build a receiver to monitor for those frequencies, would they? The risk seems to come more from smart people in the car-thief and chop-shop community who would build and distribute LoJack detectors, jammers, and the like, and these people would be more likely to be able to find the relevant information without needing us as a source. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed that section again. If it's public knowledge, there is no legal issue, and the whole thing is a bluff of some kind. Is there any reason not to put it back in the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually this is public information. Some random redlinked account removing information and claiming to be acting upon a legal request carries no weight at all. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it, and if the redlink reverts it back again, he'll probably be hitting 3RR, and he'll get turned in for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur that since the knowledge is public information and is available to anyone who wishes to view it, that there is no legal recourse that the company can use to remove the text. Warn, block if necessary. seicer | talk | contribs 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I put this up on Requests for Protection since its beginning to head into edit warville. rootology (T) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And it has been protected, although the user opposed to posting that info has already basically given up on trying to censor the info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I protected it without knowing of the discussion here, responding to the RFPP request. The history of the article showed a LOT of insanse back-and-forth reverts and edit warring, so I thought a protection was warented. I have no objection to unprotecting if the parties involved clearly agree to seek dispute resolution WP:DR over the issue, but we should not allow the edit war to continue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the article's talk page is also important. The opponents are trying to apply some sort of moral standard to wikipedia, i.e. that they should censor based on what someone might do. They made a strange comparison between this and alleging that wikipedia tells how to make "crack" (a potent cocaine derivative). I pointed out that wikipedia neither originates information nor censors information. Wikipedia is about gathering public, verifiable information. Having said all that, the week's worth of protection is probably good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another editor found a good link to explain why this complaint need not be honored by wikipedia editors. Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues If there are legal issues, they can be taken up with the wikipedia legal authorities. But until such time, there is no valid reason for exclusion. It's public information, and wikipedia does not censor information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now he thinks that by going to Jimbo Wales, he can override the wikipedia rules. [61] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's talk page points out that this info is available at Radio Shack, for heaven's sake. There is obviously no verifiability or legality issue. The complainants still have the option of challenging based on other wikipedia rules, such as notability or neutrality, if they care to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have no particular opinion on this particular content dispute, I did want to say a few words about ethics. Some people in this thread appear to be putting forward the argument that since Wikipedia is not censored, then if there is no legal reason not to include public information, it should be included. Well, that is only true if we drop the full context of the ethical nature of what we are doing here, which is not compiling a huge data dump of all verifiable information, but rather writing an encyclopedia. There are many many valid reasons why some information is excluded from Wikipedia, and among them is and should be questions related to human dignity, ethics, harm to others, etc. It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment. Let me say that again for emphasis: it is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment.

The most important and common case where this comes up is in questions related to the Biographies of Living Persons who are of marginal notability. We can and do, on a daily basis, delete information about such people even if it is verifiable, for the simple reason that it is morally right to do so: we can not responsibly write a full biography of a person who is well known for only a single negative event, and so we refrain from doing so, even though this means that we are excluding verifiable publicly known information. To be more specific: a good encyclopedia is not a tabloid newspaper, but should strive for neutrality above all else, and in some cases, neutrality is impossible because the information available is so limited.

Similarly, we can envision situations - other than strictly legal situations - where the right thing to do would be to exclude information that we as a community might thoughtfully judge to be both useless and dangerous. I have no opinion about the validity of the argument that having the frequency available in Wikipedia might lead hobbyists to get into dangerous situations. I did a google search on "LoJack frequency" and it is pretty much very widely available, and the sorts of hobbyists who would know what to do with the information will have access to it anyway I suppose.

So my point is not about this particular case: the facts here are complex and a valid discussion can be had about it amongst people who are better qualified than I am to think about it. My point is about the overall structure of the argument. You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - the argument should not be "we're not censored and it's available, so of course we include it"; rather it should be "does including the information add anything to the article?" I would say in this instance including the frequency adds very little. Neıl 龱 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with what Jimbo said, though I'll point out that "Talk to the legal department" was at least a partially correct response in this case... if somebody is writing in article space that they want something removed for legal reasons, regardless of whether we decided to remove the information anyway on ethical grounds, that person should be directed to OTRS as soon as possible. For sake of argument, let's say the user is correct that there are legal grounds for removal. It could take a week or more before editors came to a consensus on whether the frequency information is "useless and dangerous", but if somebody is making legal rumblings, OTRS needs to be informed immediately. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

The basis of my objection to their objection is that they were singling out wikipedia, in trying to somehow block information which is already widely available. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Per [62] for just one hour. Because it was getting relentless. (note only protected to autocomnfirmed so there may be some more Grawpy issues). Feel free to revert me if anyone wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, what a history. I would advise not putting a time limit on protections like this, when the page is under concerted, organised attack from a group of vandals, as they will now be waiting for 15:00 to roll around, and it will restart until someone else protects it. Better to make it indefinite and then manually take off the protection at an unspecified time, and spend the interim blocking all the IPs. Neıl 龱 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was mindful of our policy of not protecting FA's on the main page, but I do agree totally with your assesment here Neil. I'm likely to be offline shortly, so if any one wishes to extend and then make a mental note to remove it later that's all good. Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lmao. But really make it an unspecified time within the next 2-3 hours. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, look at the history between 18:03 to 18:09; the goatse pic stayed on the front page FA for 7 minutes. Spellcast (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just move-protect featured articles permanently (or at least during the period they're featured)? The's no reason anyone anywhere should be moving them anyway (they wouldn't be 'featured' if they weren't where they were supposed to be in the first place), and that would stop stuff like this before it ever starts. HalfShadow 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And back to semi. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Half-Shadow's is a good suggestion: protect FAs for the day they are on the main page. The current policy makes them large-scale vandalism targets, and they are, for all intents and purposes, meaningless on the very day they are featured. When I recently assisted in bringing an article to the main page, I advised my friends to read it the days before or after, knowing it would be particularly unreliable on its featured day. ?*&#! JNW (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody else take a look at Disseminate99 (talk · contribs)'s contributions. All of their edits have been to add links to the Trojan condoms website to various external links sections. I don't see that the links add anything to the articles that isn't already there, but I wanted another look by other people before I addressed Disseminate99 on the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And a none-too-subtle user ID, at that. If he does it again, block him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is the right page to comment on this, but anyway User talk:BanditoLoco has many intresting things to say. He requests the removal of wikipedia editors or maybe even admins(i dont know which) and most intresting is he says he has alot of accounts which means sock puppets, . Any comments? --PandaSaver (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WadeKeller2012 insists that I keep personally attacking him, and leaves messages on my talk page informing me to be civil or that I will banned for it. He also called edits of mine vandalism when I was in fact just correcting a link to avoid a redirect. He has also trolled other user, see here and here, after they left him notices to be civil himself. Help would be greatly appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone made mention of the fact the user name (minus the 2012) is identical to Wade Keller, of Pro Wrestling Torch fame? Might this be an issue that needs to be addressed at WP:UAA? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The user is claiming to be Wade Keller, or at least his comment "Especially since I covered them in editions of The Torch Newsletter", here imply that he is Wade Keller. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, has this been verified through an OTRS request? From my (rather mundane) knowledge of the username policy, if someone is claiming to be a famous figure, or a representative of that same figure, that has to be verified first for WP:BLP reasons. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that (or much else to do with username policy), so I would assume "no". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was slight off, here's the policy for usernames that are identical to real names. Apparently an OTRS request is only needed if the account is blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no harm, no foul. In any case, the user has responded to me posting this thread this on my talk page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked as he was the "latest in a string of impersonation accounts" according to the blocking admin. Apologies for wasting space! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Several similar IPs from (geolocate says) Blackberry.net have been making prank edits around Wikipedia:

• 216.9.250.115 John Amos diff
• 216.9.250.39 John Amos diff
• 216.9.250.96 page-blanking diff

Two of these IPs and some others keep attacking the John Amos article by repeatedly adding a paragraph that floridly describes an interview of Amos on the Howard Stern show. [63] The paragraph as written violates all of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCE.

The Blackberry IPs have been joined in their crusade to insert this material by single-issue editors apparently elsewhere:

• 208.115.91.252 John Amos diff
• 68.236.2.70 John Amos diff
• 68.236.57.219 John Amos diff
• 68.163.23.111 claiming credit for unsigned comment inserted by 68.236.57.219

Since these are all IPs, I don't know if it's appropriate to file a sockpuppet report. There may be dynamic IP assigments rather than deceptive spoofing. But looking at the edits coming in from those three IPs at blackberry.net, none seem to be constructive.

The origin of the material seems to be an edit made in Good Times in March, 2007: [64] by an IP in Philadelphia [65]. This primordial IP is similar to an IP above that is claiming credit for edits apparently coming in from a different IP.

Other editors before me have long been removing this paragraph from both [John Amos]] and Good Times. I tried to explain Wikipedia policy on the John Amos talk page, but they ignore the policy questions and accuse me of moralizing or "elitist revisionism".

Will Beback was kind enough to protect John Amos yesterday in response to my request for help, but he suggested I bring this problem to ANI. Today, yet another single-purpose IP has just added the material to Good Times instead. [66]. So here I am. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there are too many different IPs to block them all, and since the abuse has been happening for 3-5 weeks, I suggest two months of semi-protection for John Amos and Good Times. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'ave also semi-protected Daryn Kagan, another target of the same editor. He's also gone after CNN, but that article is widely-watched and edited so less suitable for long-term protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was a thread on User:Abtract earlier here. Well, he is still harassing me, ergo edit warring, at the Aladdin dab (note this has been mentioned here). Any assistance would be great. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would. Abtract (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just want to note, the earlier thread is available above. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Abtract has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)