Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive132

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Community sanction 2 ThisMunkey and attacks against me 2.1 Comments by User:J Milburn regarding filtering the main page for suitable content. 2.2 I have Indef Blocked User:ThisMunkey 3 Eliot Spitzer 4 User:FrozenPurpleCube changing signatures 5 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 6 Autoblocks 7 Sock puppet accusations on Homeopathy article probation page 7.1 Proposed short topic ban for Whig 7.2 Above probation, what it would entail 7.3 Response from Whig 7.4 Result 7.5 Support has been established for a 6-month Whig topic ban on Whig 8 Dealing with a cabal of a obstructive editors POV and OR 9 Favour requested from nice admin 10 Backlog at Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism 11 Admitted Sockpuppet 12 Major CAT:CSD backlog 13 possible vandalbot 14 Block review 15 Who would have thought... 16 CheckPage 17 Harassment 18 Unfair block (again)- Homeopathy 19 Category for Deletion Archive? 20 Odd behavior, possibly by school users 21 Alchemic Dream 22 Semi-protected 23 Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation 24 Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence 25 User:Dick.ellershaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 26 RfA participation needed to offset canvassing 27 Actions of Lykantrop 28 Can someone 29 Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States 30 Aids POV 31 Request for unbanning 32 Image help 33 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar 34 Proxy? 35 Jeff Merkey 36 Withdrawal from voluntary 1RR 37 Deletion of disparaging redirects 38 Interview and notices 39 AWB favor 40 RfB consensus poll - reminder 41 Request for review of User:Hornetman16's community ban 42 Suicide note

[edit] Wikipedia:Community sanction

I have proposed reviving this historical page so we can use it to document the process by which the community creates sanctions other than bans. The page would be a descriptive account of how things actually work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a new reason why we need this? If there's not, I certainly oppose this for all the many reasons I did so before. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a very good reason. On this noticeboard we are creating community sanctions (See the discussions about Whig and Igorberger), but there is no where to document how the process of doing that works. By simply recording the past consensuses of how this works, we can save time and avoid confusion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I laugh wryly? That's why I advocated WP:CSN it in the first place! Needless to say it rapidly got hijacked into "votes for banning". Guy (Help!) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We got it under control here, so no need to open that up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not in any way attempting to resurrect WP:CSN. However, if we are going to create community sanctions, it does make sense to have a page explaining what a community sanction is and how it is created. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bring some order to the current chaos. --barneca (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I was just wryly amused. I know it is controversial, but if a centralised record were created and permanently protected (allowing others to make comments via talk) we might avoid the previous problems. We do need a centralised record of some sort to prevent people from exploiting our lack of racial memory. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The centralized records already exist. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia:General sanctions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. The revived page, Wikipedia:Community sanction would document the types of sanctions commonly used and the community process for creating them. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloody IRL, you miss all kinds of useful wiki developments. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If what is to be revived is a page describing what sorts of sanctions have been imposed in the past, (as is what is at the Wikipedia:Community_sanction page now), that seems useful. But I'd really rather not see revival of the voting process we had before in the last days of WP:CSN... (and I know that's not what is being proposed but I want to make that point anyway) ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this proposal is sound, provided that this won't turn back into a "voting" process. From what I understand, it'll just be a page explaining the CS process. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We have enough noticeboards as it is. I don't think we need more. Besides, everything we already have is already covered in our existing noticeboards. A noticeboard for explianing the process should be covered in something like a Wikipedia:Policy explanation noticeboard. Other than that, I don't think it is needed. That is about the only additional noticeboard I can think of that we need here on wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea for a noticeboard, but I don't think what is being proposed is another noticeboard. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting this as an alternative. Yahel Guhan 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

brr... but apparently not about voting, at least. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ThisMunkey and attacks against me

To demonstrate a point on Talk:Main Page in response to ThisMunkey's claim that the content on the main page should be moderated (asking "Should sex and violence not be banned from the main page?") (see thread) I said that I would prefer to read controversial fiction than Booker prize winners. I used The Sea as an example of a Booker winner, and Lolita as an example of controversial fiction, to which ThisMunkey replied thusly, calling me silly names (Mildew, fickface) but, more seriously, accusing me of 'promoting paedophilia', and (it's difficult to read exactly what ThisMunkey means) I believe calling me a 'child molestor'. TM was subsequently blocked for 2 days by CloudNine for "gross incivility". However, TM did not retract what was said, and continued to moan and abuse me (and others) on his/her talk page from this section down. TM claimed to be proud of attacking me, continued with his/her assertion that I was promoting child abuse and child pornography, as well as saying plenty of things which I can't decipher but am pretty sure is more casual abuse of me, including "If Milburn is a candidate for child porno he is the candidate/perverter of child sex abuse." Several users (myself included) warned TM for incivility, while trying to show him/her how ridiculous his/her assertions were through use of common sense/logic. CloudNine eventually locked the talk page, but TM's block has now ended, and the only comment retracted was calling me a 'dirt bird'. What looks sort of like an apology was posted on the main page talk page, but my questioning as to whether attacks against me have been retracted went completely ignored, with TM continuing to reply to talk page threads about this whole affair moments after I posted my question. TM has continued to attack me since he was unblocked.

Other relevent diffs are some of the spam messages on various talk pages, in which TM again accuses me of child abuse/perversion. It wasn't even a case of taking my comments out of context- even out of context, I am expressing an opinion on two pieces of literature I have read. TM simply outright lies about what I said.

• Mine (only found this when looking for evidence, was mercifully reverted at the time)
• GordyB
• Fuzzform
• RHaworth
• Tangerines
• Geometry guy

I don't think I need to defend my own comments- I said, simply, that I preferred one book over the other, or at least that that book was of more interest to me. Anyone can see that saying I preferred a book concerning paedophilia to one about a retired artist no more suggests I condone paedophilia than (to use the same analogy I used with TM) saying I preferred Saving Private Ryan to Juno says I condone war. In any case, I am bringing the matter up here because I am not comfortable with the way this whole issue has worked out, and would like some others to weigh in on the situation. I may be over-reacting, but I don't think I should take accusations of this sort lightly. I am now going to leave messages for TM and CloudNine about this thread, as they are the two other people most involved in this matter. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:J Milburn regarding filtering the main page for suitable content.

My God, I am sick and tired of people saying 'Wikipedia is not censored, but we mustn't let people see anything that might offend them.' We cover all topics; if people want to pretend that things they don't like don't exist, then they can go elsewhere. People may be interested in these topics, and the featured article is to offer people something they may wish to learn about. Seeing as everyone else is throwing their opinions around as fact, I will too- a controversial book is of far more interest than a Booker prize winner. Booker prize winners suck. If given the choice between Lolita and The Sea, I know damn well which one I would read or read about... J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Provided by user:ThisMunkey and deleted from this noticeboard instantly by user:J Milburn. ThisMunkey (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted instantly from the noticeboard because this is not the correct use of the noticeboard. Providing a link to the diff in the thread that already exists would have been suitable, this is not. This comment does not stand alone as an issue, and so should not have its own section. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Now a sub-section, no problem with that. See my comment's diff. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Milburn is striking out my comments. The first link above to a comment by me that I worded innacurately but all the rest are quite accurate and it is hardly a different ball game. You will find that I was very heated in response to his comment, being blocked for 48 hours. I have zero reason to apologise for being outraged by this user. The attack and statement in the quote above is of quite clear meaning and may be found at talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday. ThisMunkey (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out the innacuracy in Milburns claim that my suggestion was avoiding "sex and violence" on the main page as it was avoiding "graphical sex and violence fiction" on the main page in light that Wikipedia 1.0s being promoted to schools on dvd. A reasonable topic. ThisMunkey (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the links posted, I think your actions are indefensible and you'd better apologize to J Milburn. Not being an admin, I can't threaten you with anything, but it would be the decent human thing to do. You're acting like a baby right now. JuJube (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of clarification (I haven't looked at the links):

Wikipedia is showcased not just by its article quality, but by its article scope. Traditionally we pretty much don't censor the main page. After all, anyone can read the articles anyway, and the fact we can take a controversial subject and make a high quality article from it, is far more credit to the project and its editors to those seriously evaluating the site. (Other criteria, such as article stability are however taken into account.)

We cover Christianity, surgery, cosmology and optics; we also cover penis, bestiality and torture. (I think I've edited on most of these and several hundred other topics, both as an author and in an administrative context.) Each is capable of high quality, or low quality treatment. Each of them, if well written, showcases Wikipedia to the world. Each of them may also be a topic that some people - probably many people - will find educational, interesting, or useful to know of. In some ways it can be very helpful to have some focus on marginal subjects, since generally more attention encourages others to edit and more editorial eyeballs.

As for personal attacks, the assumption that someone reads matters connected to X, or edits on topics of X, is in no way a justification for personal attack. People have wide ranging interests here - but personal attacks are never to be considered acceptable. If their editing is improper, or they do not leave an obvious non-neutral approach at the door and try to edit war, that would be far more to the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now looked at the links. Comments such as this ("perverts like USER"), this ("You are the fickface [sic] that makes a nice bloke slit throats"), this ("I would believe that a person expressing taste for books of perversion are perverts"), this ("This user says he would prefer small girls at LINK") and the like show a grievous misunderstanding. Yes, some topics are offensive. No we don't judge editors by the topoics they edit, but rather, by the nature of their editing. No we don't misrepresent others this way - it is unlawful to do so. And yes, Wikipedia is not censored.

I was going to give a final warning, but I see you have already been blocked for continuing your personal attacks. (see below) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have Indef Blocked User:ThisMunkey

I should like my actions to be reviewed, and if there is no consensus for either the block or the tariff for it to be adjusted without further reference to me. I do not think that making these claims, the same that which lead to an earlier shorter sanction, should be tolerated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur, but note he may not consider me a neutral person to opine and you should probably ask others too. Seems unlikely to comprehend that posting an expression as an editor on a choice of topics does not cascade all the way to "is a criminal". We get that, sometimes. Was blocked, discussed an apology (I gather), then re-commenced attack. Note that indef blocks do not mean "ban", rather they mean "block until communal concerns over misconduct are genuinely seen as resolved (if ever)". He may not realize that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block length. It was clear, from a email discussion I had with Munkey, that he wouldn't change his views (even when presented with a convincing argument), and even insulted me over the medium. His failure to realise a misunderstanding or apologise to Milburn, (surely naming someone a paedophile on a public website must be close to libel?) combined with his continuing personal attacks mean he shouldn't be allowed to participate for a good while. CloudNine (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TM has posted an unblock request. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have declined it as premature because they have not shown an recognition of what they did wrong, nor given any assurance that they will not repeat the unacceptable behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was more than justified, along with declining the unblock request . Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support both the block and the decline of the unblock request. ThisMunkey has acted in a extremely inappropriate and damaging fashion and should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia at least until he/she show genuine understanding for the harm they have caused - both to J Milburn and the wider project - and issued an unconditional apology. Gwernol 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support LHvU. It seems to me that the Foundation has decided that no hint of advocacy of paedophilia not perhaps even to editors who edit paedophile articles to push it will be tolerated; so it stands that such accusations or posting of views that a editor may be a paedophile or be sympathetic toward same should not be tolerated either. Regardless, the continued personal attacks, from whichever side, can not be tolerated. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot Spitzer

Breaking news -- about the NY Governor's involvement in prostitution -- will surely bring out the trolls and vandals. Please keep on eye on this one. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - Spitzer is accused of hiring a prostitute, not of "involvement in prostitution," which is an entirely different thing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The trolling would be unbearable if that were the case. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he has not yet been charged with any crime. There is speculation that he may be charged with violation of the Mann Act, and with monetary improprieties (of the sort he has prosecuted others for). So there is no question this will become a big story; we just have to be sure that all the information is properly cited - with all the reportage, that shouldn't be difficult. IF the details of his requests (as "customer #9") leak out, resignation is likely. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd begun a thread previously on ANI for this. Please watchlist Eliot Spitzer; the BLP violations in some cases are sneaking through for several revisions and will need a close eye. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:FrozenPurpleCube changing signatures

This user is changing the signature on many pages, for example this closed AFD [link removed for obvious reasons]. There is an explanation at User talk:FrozenPurpleCube. Is this a legitimate action please? BlueValour (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't hurt anything. It hides the person's old name from casual google searches. It does not really do anything positive either, but carries little harm as long as the user is only changing sigs and not other parts of the archived discussions. Thatcher 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, now that I actually read the notice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocks

Anybody happen to know why we can't search for autoblocks anymore? Temporarily broken? Gone forever? That was a very useful tool, and I've hated not having it. - auburnpilot talk 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How long do autoblocks last, anyway? When a sockpuppet I operate was blocked[1], my IP was blocked as well--presumably, for 24 hours. But it appears I have already come back...... Weird.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to pgk's toolserver utility? The data was noticeably out of date (in the order of days), last I used it. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I saw AzaToth (talk · contribs) remove it from MediaWiki:Blockiptext a couple weeks ago as a "defunct tool" but couldn't find any mention of what happened to it, or if it would be coming back. - auburnpilot talk 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet accusations on Homeopathy article probation page

User:Jehochman is repeating unproven sock puppet accusations [2] and anon users have been seeking to out a real name on the same page [3]. Oversight may be needed. —Whig (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this thread on H/AP/I and RfCU. —Whig (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't see the problem here. User:Jehochman appears to be faithfully reporting the checkuser results, while the attempted "outing" of User:The Tutor appears to be an (unnecessary) attempt to connect two accounts in the notification section, not an attempt to out anybody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but the checkuser was brought for the purpose of outing someone, and attempted to tie a new user to a known sockpuppeteer of opposing POV along with the real named user that the accuser was trying to verify as the same as the new user. The real named user is attempting to exercise his right to vanish, the new user denies being the same person, and no evidence has proven this connection. Hence the tying of these accounts defeats the real named user's desire to vanish, and tarnishes the new user as an alleged sock puppet. Please note that neither the named user nor the new user have ever been accused of misconduct, so this whole exercise is really nothing but a disruption and likely to chase away a valuable new contributor if not addressed promptly. —Whig (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are really only two possibilities here:

1. The named user and the new user are different people. In this case, the sock puppet accusation should be removed.
2. The named user and the new user are the same person. In this case, the named user wants to vanish and edit pseudonymously. As an editor in good standing without any accusations of misconduct, the sock puppet accusation should be removed. —Whig (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He has apparently exercised his rtv. That means no further editing in any form. Continuing under another user name is acceptable, but that means his previous user talk page should be preserved, or at least move the contents to The Tutor's talk page and clean up all uses of his real name. -- Fyslee / talk 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I must keep reminding you, there is no proof that these are the same person. —Whig (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be naive. The Tutor can provide evidence that he is not MC, if he wishes to defend himself. You're just muddying the waters and if he is tempted to adopt your defense, you may end up an accessory and get him in more trouble. Better to stay out of it. -- Fyslee / talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Even if they are the same, there is no prohibition on users abandoning one account and using another one. MC was not under any kind of restriction, he was an editor in good standing. Why should you disrespect someone's desire to have pseudonymity if that is what happened? And why should The Tutor have to respond to these accusations when there was no abuse of sock puppets alleged. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Drop the sock puppet thing. That's not an issue here. It's the avoidance of scrutiny (nothing to do with real name or ID) that's the main problem:

"Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" "Avoiding scrutiny" "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. [...] It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

It's the deception and deletion of MC's user talk page (a talk page is not owned by the user) with the reasoning that he would vanish, but then reappeared as The Tutor, that's the problem. This has been explained numerous times now, so I give up. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making an unwarranted assumption of bad faith that there was some intention to "confuse or deceive editors". And what is your "legitimate interest" in reviewing these contributions? There was no allegation of bad behavior by either user that would require your review. —Whig (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best template to use since its rather general, but it contains the essentials. As to deception, regardless of intent confusion is the result, and TT's denial is the first deception, minor as it may be. He apparently didn't realize that a later check user would place MC and TT pretty close. (He's not that experienced yet.) BTW, checkuser isn't absolute, but when added to other evidence it makes a much stronger case. You can believe him if you wish, but The Tutor is obviously not a new user and he shares the rather unique interests, knowledge, and mindset of MC closer than a mother is related to their own child. Please don't be naive here. Fighting for a principle is one thing, but ignoring the obvious isn't smart. You and TT need to read these pages:

• Wikipedia:Right to vanish
• Wikipedia:Changing username

Keep in mind that I'll support his choice to continue as TT, provided he admits that MC's RTV wasn't used to vanish, and that his change of username is done properly. MC's edit history needs to follow him, and the contents of MC's user talk page needs to as well. That talk page (which is not owned by MC) was deleted under apparently false pretenses. If he wishes anonymity (I don't recall him asking for it), then I'll certainly do all I can to help him in that regard. Please do not respond before you have thoroughly digested those two pages. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is absurd. I think you should not be allowed to Wikilawyer people like this. —Whig (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should be sanctioned for harassment, in fact. You are asserting that a new user lied, without proof, and demanding that he admit he lied in order for you to graciously allow him to abandon the identity which you assert is his. —Whig (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you haven't read those pages. Bad boy. My objections are based on wikipolicies and there's no wikilawyering going on here, only an insistance that an obviously-NOT-new user (only new username) follow policies. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. TT is not a new user. It's only a new username. (Did that sink in?) Read TT's edit history. Drop this. Your insistance on pressing this issue is beginning to feel like I caught dysentery and the diarrhea is trailing behind me. I can't get rid of you, and your pressing the issue is feeling like harassment. Keep in mind, this doesn't involve you. You aren't TT's mom. Let TT speak for himself. I see from his immediate edit history that he hasn't vanished yet, but is even resuming MC's battles where MC left off, and is keeping you informed. That's not vanishing. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming arguendo all of your assertions, he has done nothing wrong and your rigid insistence on procedure would still be harassment and wikilawyering. You are failing to assume good faith. You have not been honest in your own statements, but have refactored yourself, I will not say more about it here, please stop treating a new user (even MC was a new user, remember) with such hostility and accusation. You should be ashamed of yourself. All of you who are hounding this person should be ashamed. Given the worst implications of everything, he'd just be a person who wanted to protect his private identity. Leave him alone or this should escalate to ArbCom ASAP. —Whig (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even were all accusations correct the basis of the checkuser was defective, and no information should have been given in this case or would have been most likely if the named user and new user had not been identified as possible sock puppets of Unprovoked, a totally unbelievable claim for anyone to have made who paid even the slightest attention to the respective POVs of participants. Accusations of sock puppetry are accusations of bad faith, and unfounded accusations of bad faith against new users are a bad thing. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather odd for Whig to start this thread by talking about me, and not provide any notice to me whatsoever. (The notice got lost in the shuffle. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)) I just stumbled upon this. Whig has been running around acting as an advocate for User:The Tutor. This is not helpful, and hopefully will stop soon. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking part of this, but I would appreciate if you would also withdraw your attempt to ban me and your claim of bad faith. —Whig (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Pay better attention, please. You are really causing problems by failing to pay attention, in my opinion, which was the original reason that I brought this matter here in the first place as dispute resolution with you. I insist that you strike or remove your personal attack or we may continue to have dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Real named users if they break our policies will be hung out by their underwear the same as any other user, full stop. They are entitled to no special protections that any other user does not enjoy. I see no violation there. If you have a "beef" you will bring it up on that page or via an RFAR request. Stop pestering Jehochman with unfounded accusations. He's reporting checkuser evidence is what I see. If a troll, or the Tutor, or whomever that is wanted to leave Wikipedia, he should have left. Picking up the same destructive behaviors under a new name to avoid scrutity is his own failure, not Jehochman's for reporting him. Please go to the proper channels on this. If you do, and lack support, perhaps that would illuminate you as to the value of your stance. Lawrence § t/e 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this friendly. Whig, go ask Thatcher what needs to be done here. He's the checkuser who redacted some content from that RFCU. I removed content in parallel with what he did. Okay, thanks, bye. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, please point directly to the personal attack you mentioned. I've looked and looked and can't see one. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for evidence via diffs on my talk page and still also have yet to see this alleged evidence. It seems without that like an unfortunate effort to harm Jehochman's good name. Lawrence § t/e 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right here. On this very thread. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely not any sort of violation as you have described it. It is a factually correct observation of your behavior, and a statement of Jehochman's personal wishes for the future of your behavior. Your behavior here is growing disruptive. Do you have any other evidence to warrant your unsourced attacks on another editor? Provide them now while you have time. Lawrence § t/e 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a factually correct observation of my behavior. It is factually false as a matter of fact in that I did notice him and provided the link in the immediately following comment. Please stop repeating falsehoods about me. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

<--The checkuser case asked to check between a number of editors including [omitted as a courtesy] and The Tutor. Since they were unrelated, no specific allegations of wrongdoing were alleged against them (other than that they were socks, which they aren't) and since this seems to be a case of an editor discontinuing one account and opening another, I see no reason to press forward with the matter. If an editor realizes that he would rather not use his real name, dropping one account and assuming another is just as valid a way of protecting his identity (perhaps even more so) than doing a name change. The history of the original account (active for 3 weeks, 157 edits, no blocks) is not significant enough that we need to force The Tutor to maintain links to the account. RTV is about being kind and humane, and as long as The Tutor is not evading a long block log or something, I see no reason to force him to maintain the linkage. Thatcher 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed short topic ban for Whig

<RI> (Crossposted from Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents) Whig has an extensive history of disruption on homeopathy-related talk pages. This incident is but one of many that editors of these pages have had to endure. I will restrict the following collection of diffs to those posted in the last four days, in the interest of freshness, but please realize that this behavior has gone on for months.

• Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
• Meatpuppetry:[11][12][13][14]
• Wikilawyering:[15][16]
• Personal attacks:[17][18][19]
• Canvassing:[20]
• Arbcom threats:[21][22][23][24]
• Other disciplinary threats:[25]
• Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation:[26]
• Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom:[27][28]

This needs to stop. This behavior is poisoning good faith attempts by both pro- and anti-factions to improve coverage of homeopathic topics on Wikipedia. Whig has been the subject of two recent user conduct RFCs (here and here), which have had no effect in changing his tendentious and needlessly argumentative approach. I recommend a broadly defined topic ban (if not a full siteban) that covers all articles and talk pages related to homeopathy, as well as any user page/AN/ANI discussions related to homeopathy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A 31 day 6 month (see below section) topic ban, broad defined, as suggested. If Whig is here for the encyclopedia, and not POV ends, this shouldn't be a problem for him. Lawrence § t/e 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support The diffs above, and linked RFCs, show that Whig continues their longstanding pattern of disruptive editing, in spite of mentorship attempts and second chances.[29] As User: Bishonen stated, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This RFC already has enough proof in it that Whig is a disruptive editor who adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, and who wastes the time and energy of productive editors. The most important function of the arbitration committee is to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. Take Whig to arbitration."[30] Before we do that, I would move for a 30 day community ban. A topic ban will not work because the disruption will simply migrate to other places. If we are unanimous, we can end this disruption here and now. Otherwise, an arbitration case may be necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have found little sign of AGF from many of the editors involved who do not seem to be trying to get a NPOV for the articles , just pressing their own POV hard. The Tutor (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as initiator. I would prefer a community ban - limited topic bans have been placed on Whig in the past, which has led him to increase disruption elsewhere. The main purpose of my proposal is to stop him from further inflaming the situation at Homeopathy, which a broad topic ban would accomplish, but I don't think he's really here to write an encyclopedia. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the incredibly thin ice he's already on, if he causes trouble elsewhere while on this (or the next after) topic ban, he won't be long for the site anyway. Lawrence § t/e 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've been here a whole lot longer than you, it seems. Skinwalker brought these false charges which I have refuted below. No response is needed to the regular crowd of people who have been trying to ban me for five months. —Whig (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse — I trust the judgments here and the diffs provided. --Haemo (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, regarding the diffs provided. —Whig (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm more inclinded towards a full, indefinite ban. Whig is already under a community-imposed topic ban that lasts until April 15, but it seems to have no effect The terms of the ban were:
  • A 1RR restriction
  • A broadly defined civility and profanity parole
  • No editing homeopathy except for reverting simple vandalism
  • All of the above is enforceable by blocks.
• The only reason that Whig got his indefinite block overturned was because he agreed to the above restrictions, but that's failed. It's obvious that Whig contributes to a poisonous atmosphere in an already troubled area; it's time to kick him out of the boat. east.718 at 23:31, March 8, 2008

  I would encourage you to please read my response below, and I have not violated any of those terms. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support / Moral support I endorse the intent to do something about Whig. However a limited topic ban will have no long-term effect. He was under sanctions before which fizzled out with Whig eventually returning to this type of behavior. Past experience suggests that we will have the same conversation every three months or so (maybe one of the devs can write a script to automate the process). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then why not just ban him from discussing, participating in, or working on anything homeopathy/science related, at all? That would include editing the articles, discussing issues surrounding them here on Project space, user space, etc.--it's a big encyclopedia. Lawrence § t/e 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, if sufficiently airtight to avoid the possibility of circumvention that might be a workable alternative to an indefinite ban. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure it is broad enough to cover movies that pretend to be about science as well. I would hate to see him get bored and join that battle over at What the Bleep Do We Know.Kww (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Whig is one of several who hang around homeopathy and similar topics, agitating and not contributing much except irritation. His very presence impedes progress and contributes to a foul atmosphere. I have had private communications from people on both sides of the homeopathy debate who have become discouraged with the ugly attitudes on the homeopathy pages and related pages, and Whig is a major contributor to these unpleasant behaviors, I am sorry to say. Restricting Whig's actions on the mainspace pages is a pointless exercise because Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues, in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  One of the charges against me involves the fact that I have informed this editor that WP:AGF does not apply in his case when he makes statements without providing sources. I can provide the reason if that is requested. —Whig (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• support/endorse mainly Jehochman's remarks. The Tutor is correct that there have been serious AGF and other problems with some related articles on all sides; however, this is in no way mitigates the incredible disruptiveness that Whig has demonstrated. Indeed, I'd be inclined to guess that much of the failure to assume AGF comes from people exhausted with having to deal with Whig. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or greater. Whig is a consistently obstructive presence whose modest useful inputs have been consistently overshadowed by tendentious traits, obfuscation, baiting, rules-lawyering, and a general unwillingness to compromise. — Scientizzle 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 mo. ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please read my response below, and explain your reasoning. —Whig (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The vast majority of the above editors are the usual suspects who have content issues with Whig and with homeopathy. Whig has shown great civility. Because he is knowledgeable about wiki-rules, he is more of a threat to the above editors who have frequently sought to silence him and who make up or exaggerate problems. Let's AGF even when we disagree with editors. DanaUllman^Talk 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Comments from Lawrence suggest that Whig's edits outside the broadly-defined areas of science, alternative medicine, and pseudoscience is unproblematic - and as such, the community ban which Whig would otherwise richly deserve may not yet be totally justified. I have read Whig's response below, and do not believe it even begins to address his disruptive behaviour. His constant refusals to listen - amply demonstrated in his declarations in previous AN/I discussions and at the RfC that he would continue to act as he has previously - his continuing wikilawyering, and the obnoxious schadenfreude make these further sanctions over and above the now-failed editing restrictions (which, I might add, he has wikilawyered about being described as a probation) long overdue. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've watched Whig for several months. He attacks other editors without remorse, and has not been a useful member of this community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a long vacation. I have posted further diff's for this case on the Incidents page. I did not want to clutter everything up here. I would also like to note that the two opposes greatly reinforce some of the comments I made in my evidence. In short, Whig willingly broke the terms of his editing restrictions (and even claimed he was never under any restrictions) and should be held accountable. Baegis (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban. Why indefinite? Because he has consistently revealed a pattern that shows he can't understand basic science, and even if he does, refuses to learn from it. This leads to an attitude problem where his energy seems to be focused on what he sees as "The Truth", and then, as Fill so aptly puts it: "Whig is not really here to build an encyclopedia, but to get into fights with other editors over ridiculous issues." I share his opinion. Many things have been tried, but nothing has worked, and a short ban has no hope of working. Nothing useful has come from Whig's presence here. Few users here are so successful at wasting vast amounts of our time. It's time to get rid of one of the major thorns under our saddles. -- Fyslee / talk 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month community ban, for continuing tendentious editing. .. dave souza, talk 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban / block. Addhoc (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban from WP for 6months. After looking at his edits, the diffs above, and reading his response below, this action seems to be supported and sustainable. Whig could maybe become a good editor, but at the moment he is causing WP more problems. A vacation from WP, and then maybe a tutoring might help. And in the meantime perhaps WPs big problems with pseudo-sciences can be fixed so he comes back to a better ship. I have no "axe to grind" and have not been involved much with Whig, and I do not think that is what is driving this ban. --Partyoffive (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Fine by me. Really, Whig should have been banned a while back - he is the classic tendentious editor - but this works as well. Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Curiously the above seems to be what the Community stated in Whig's various RfCs. So this is what the Community needs to do in order to encourage a tendentious but O so civil editor, not to be so disruptive. 3 RfCs, hours of edits, lots of posts on AN. But he is so civil, surely that counts for everything in Wikipedia? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has commented above I'd like to point out that I've not been involved in any of the RFCs. Looking at the evidence, Whig is a problem editor who refuses to acknowledge that he has had restrictions placed on him. Some (only a few) people who have acted against him in the past have probably had too thin a skin where Whig is involved, but he has brought this on himself with his superficial civility and intentional misdirection and intentional misunderstanding. I want to make WP better, and having Whig removed for a while to hopefully cool down, while the rest of us get on with improving articles without his stonewalling, would do this. Hopefully when he comes back the articles will be in such a good state he'll have to contribute positively as any other actions would easily be identified as vandalism. However, I'm guessing you're being sarcastic with the civil and everything comments?? --Partyoffive (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very unsure how to understand the term 'superficial civility'. This seems to be a far worse crime here than incivility. Whig has strived to ensure that the articles are balanced has not disrupted on the main page(s). He has 'Talked'; often against a relay team in opposition who often showing incivility and lack of AGF. In the unfortunate case involving me, he was trying to uphold my rights against the same relay team, as he thought (rightly) that it might be difficult for me to support myself. If editors did not wish to Talk with Whig then they should have simply stopped, but they continued to goad him, and now complain that he remained 'civil'. The Tutor (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Above probation, what it would entail

Rather than lose Whig indefinitely, the probation will be a 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to Whig, so that we don't lose him completely. He seems to be fine except with these articles. Lawrence § t/e 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The diffs above comport a false record of my activity and reflect a one sided presentation. As such, I protest any such ban or restriction. —Whig (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your history here is well known, per above supports. Lawrence § t/e 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any point in my providing diffs in opposition? —Whig (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs completely refuting your disruptive nature on science and homeopathy articles, and refuting point by point all the Supports, it would be in your best interests. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will I be given sufficient time and opportunity to do so? —Whig (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's an important decision and your perspective is essential. I've added a topic heading below -- please respond at whatever length and in whatever manner you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well.. If the community decides to place the sanction on you, it can always be removed later if you convince the community to do so with evidence. The participation of any one editor "now" on any one topic area is never so crucial that Wikipedia will suffer for their absence for a short while. You should completely not touch these articles in any capacity except for this thread for now, probably. Lawrence § t/e 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence against me (refuted utterly below), what more would you like? —Whig (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to try harder. Did you read the support comments? You are being put forward for probation for a long history of these issues. You still have yet to provide a satisfactory diff even once of these so-called attacks others have made on you today in violation of WP:NPA. Lawrence § t/e 00:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will obviously receive no fair hearing here. I have made my response. Should I wait to request arbitration? —Whig (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this should be case closed. —Whig (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Whig

Charge 1: "Demanding good faith of editors, while refusing to extend good faith in return". To respond to this I must demonstrate bad faith by other editors. Is it appropriate for me to do so here? —Whig (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 2: "Meatpuppetry". This is why we're here, I did not do anything that can be characterized as meat puppetry. I saw a new user who may or may not be a named person trying to protect his private identity, and sought to help. This is not meat puppetry. This is being a good Wikipedian. —Whig (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 3: "Wikilawyering". More of the same. I am not "wikilawyering" by trying to be helpful to a new user. —Whig (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 4: "Personal attacks". I was responding to personal attacks by Jehochman in one. The others aren't personal attacks either. —Whig (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 5: "Canvassing". I went to User:Dreadstar's talk page to discuss the attempted outing of the real named user. This is not canvassing. —Whig (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 6: "Arbcom threats". I have made no secret that I think the arbitration committee should probably be involved in this dispute. So what? —Whig (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 7: "Other disciplinary threats". I threatened nothing at all. —Whig (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 8: "Harassing admins who are trying to mediate the situation". This refers to me having a dispute with Jehochman. This dispute. —Whig (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Charge 9: "Schadenfreude over the Matt Hoffman arbcom". This one is just bizarre. I think the Matthew Hoffman arbcom case was handled as well as it could be under the circumstances. That isn't Schadenfreude. —Whig (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Observation from a non-involved nonadministrator: If you look at all the diffs involved above, it really doesn't seem like Whig is being uncivil. Most of them are almost silly - "personal attacks" in particular. It really does seem like a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him. While I obviously don't know the entire situation and there is likely some merit to the whole case, I really hope that a "mob mentality" doesn't coalesce and go overboard on the sanctions. There should be no "punishment" involved, merely an upholding of Wikipedia policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about Whig are probably well-documented enough; I'm surprised he wasn't topic-banned following his RfC. He seems to have taken the message that he needs to be civil, and his civility has improved substantially; however, there has not been a corresponding improvement in the more fundamental problem of tendentiousness. It's just become civil tendentiousness, which I would submit is not a satisfactory solution. But community-based sanctions will probably not be effective here - no matter how many previously uninvolved admins get to know Whig and find him tendentious and topic-ban-worthy (I count Haemo, Jehochman, and East718 among them based on their comments above), he and his defenders will always paint this as a lynch mob or suppression of minority views - and that sort of tactic tends to be successful on Wikipedia. In that light, I would certainly support the proposed community-based sanction, but realistically it may be a better use of time to simply start preparing evidence for ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without responding to the other points you make and which I disagree with, I do agree that nothing short of ArbCom is likely to resolve the differences here. It would be nice if we could find common consent to ask them to take up the matter. I would in any event appeal any block or ban resulting from this proceeding based upon the refuted evidence submitted. —Whig (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need here is dispute resolution, not dispute escalation and increased disruption. In this circumstance, an Arbcom would be extremely disruptive and in the face of community support for a ban such a move is unnecessary. We need to cut down on the disruption, not wallow in it and expand it. That's what an Arbcom would do. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am neither a defender or prosecuter of Whig. I merely saw a lot of fishy, frivilous evidence submitted, and wanted to post a general note that people should be wary of making this a personal matter instead of a policy matter. That's all. I heartily agree with Fyslee and the wallow/expand comment, and that's obliquely the point I was driving at. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Tanthalas39, let's think about this a bit. Why is Whig still on a form of probation or editing restriction following a previous Arbcomm case? Why were 3 RfCs against Whig filed in the last few months? Why did Whig's RfC where he tried to get sanctions levied against an admin for violating WP:CIVIL by calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" get soundly rejected by the community and result in a call for a community ban? Is this evidence of someone productive and working well with others? How many others do you know that in 6 months have been involved in so much drama (3 RfCs and an Arbcomm case and several calls for a community ban, all from different editors)? I have had private emails, not just from pro-science editors but from pro-homeopathy editors, who state in graphic terms that Whig has contributed to such a poisonous atmosphere in the homeopathy articles that they no longer choose to participate. And for all this disruption, what has Whig produced? He has a handful of edits a year or two back on an article or two about marijuana and an article about Pope Benedict XVI. That is it. In the last few months, Whig has devoted his time and energy to fighting, not productive activities. When invited repeatedly to produce something, he always demurs. He would rather fight instead. When can the community just state that it has had enough?--Filll (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What previous Arbcomm case do you propose that I am on probation or editing restriction as a consequence of? —Whig (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Whig ALWAYS claims he is under no editing restriction. But he is, and this is just another of his tactics for muddying the waters and trying to avoid accountability. For example, see here and here and here. --Filll (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For more information, please see RFC#3, RFC#2 and RFC#1 and previous administrative noticeboard threads about Whig:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig--Filll (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are a bunch of links which do not support your statement. —Whig (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which part do you think it does not support? I am guessing you are referring to my mention above that the editing restrictions were placed on you as the result of an Arbcomm proceeding, when it appears that they are the result of an AN/I proceeding. Is this what you believe is inaccurate? If so, this appears to be hair-splitting to me, and is simply the result of me not being an expert on every aspect of your highly turbulent recent career here. Who could be expected to know every detail of your bad behavior and sanctions, given that there is so much of it? I am not here to engage in battles like Whig seems to be; I am here to write an encyclopedia so I apologize if my original statement was slightly inaccurate. It does not excuse the fact that Whig is disruptive and has a long rich history of being disruptive and is under a form of administrative probation or editing restriction which he continues to deny in the face of evidence to the contrary, and this denial is a common tactic of his, as are his other assorted disruptive behaviors.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the editing restrictions in question were re-stated to Whig in December by FT2 [31], who emphasised that the community was likely to be intolerant of further problems. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Result

The above discussion seems to result in a consensus for a 6 month community ban. Various options were discussed, and the 6 month ban seems to be the one that would have the widest acceptance. Is there any administrator who would oppose this? If so, speak now. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence against me. So go ahead and ban me and we'll see what happens. —Whig (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note the threat above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more explicit because I do not intend to be vague. I will appeal any such ban. —Whig (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. This has been open for barely 18 hours and Jehochman seems very involved. The Tutor (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is involved because he is one of the admins enforcing probation on these topics, which is what Whig seems to be repeatedly violating. How is that undue or inappropriate involvement?--Filll (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been in a contentious dispute with Whig over the past few days. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea for an editor to pick a fight with an admin who is administering probation on articles on which this same editor is disruptive.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no editorial disputes with Whig. Troublemakers do not get to veto the administrators that respond to their disruptions by attacking those administrators. Sorry, no, that doesn't work. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This dispute began as a behavioral dispute with you in regards to your carelessness in repeating a false accusation about a real named person and has escalated to this point. —Whig (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I also will note that the 18 hours is a bit of a red herring, since there have been repeated administrative actions involving Whig going back for months and months. It is not like this is something new that just popped up.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but an actual community ban discussion should start with a clean state and last for at least a full day (maybe longer) or as long as needed, not as long as needed to get the "correct" result. Arbitrarily ending something like this gives the impression that the system can be gamed (ie. picking the right moment to end the discussion). I think all discussions like this should have an end point decided at the start, to avoid precisely this sort of dispute over when to end the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I can believe that this is how WP functions. I'm sorry but it seems like a lynch mob. Anthon01 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. This seems like a mob rule. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, lynching is an example of a hate crime. Speaking as an editor who is subjected to hate speech here on WP, and to a group that is regularly targetted for hate crimes, I find your description of the people contributing to this discussion as a "lynch mob" to be personally offensive, and I ask that you refactor your comment immediately. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I am at no risk of bodily harm whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, the victim personality that you are using is offensive and degrading to someone who's people have been subjected to "lynch mobs" that ended in 6 million deaths. Odd language choice..OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I see people talking about lynch mobs, I immediately think about the US Deep South, rather than the Holocaust. But not everyone reacts in the same way to the use of such language. The use of "lynch mob" as a rhetorical device is fairly common in day-to-day conversation for some people, and it is often used without any intended offence. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't cause offence, but that is on the part of the person being offended, not the person using the phrase. When I'm offended by something, I do try and step back and think "Did they mean it that way? Will me registering my offence actually help here or not?". Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to point out when a word gives offense if it is likely to offend others as well, or even if you are not personally offended certain words are best avoided unless you really mean them. This is not a lynching. —Whig (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>This is pointless nitpicking. An admin raised the question if another admin objected to closing at that point. One admin did object at closing before 24 hours is up, and so it probably will not close before 24 hours is up. So what? Let's not get all worked up over nothing. The bottom line is we have several editors on alternative medicine articles, and Whig is one of them, who do not appear to be here to write an encyclopedia, but to impede others who are trying to do so. That is the main issue. And so we will see what happens.--Filll (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lynching is the wrong term. I didn't mean it literally. My apologies to you all. This just doesn't seem right. I'm not sure how to best characterize it, but something doesn't seem right here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is disruptive and unfair, personally. The "evidence" has all been refuted away and Jehochman still wants to ban me. So be it. —Whig (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the proposal and the discussion seemed to have been winding down. Everything that could be said has been said, especially since there have been multiple RFCs and noticeboard threads on Whig's conduct. Carcharoth suggested that 18 hours was not enough time. Very well, let's wait a full 48 hours before imposing the remedy, if no administrator objects by then. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Anthon01 for striking that word "lynching." Although this wasn't the right word, what is true is that the vast majority of the editors above who are supporting the muting of Whig have content disputes with him. We should look at those observations from uninvolved editors, such as [Tanthales], who saw no significant problems with Whig. Also, it is important to note that no one has responded to Whig's response, where he effectively responds to each point and even shows that the allegations are inaccurate (anyone who reviews these allegations can confirm this). The bottomline is that Whig has shown impressive civility despite editing in a "war zone." Clearly, his work is so effective that many people who have content disputes with him are now seeking to stop him through other means. To me, this effort to mute him for 6 months or indefinitely is a tad ironic, when several of the above editors who seek serious penalties against him are not supporting serious penalties for [Randy Blackamoor] who has shown continual uncivility, hatred, and wishing death (!) of some pro-homeopathy editors (me).[32] The anti-homeopathy forces show a patable bias on who they wish to punish for minor and for major crimes against wikipedia policies. DanaUllman^Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I never said that there weren't significant problems. I keep repeating my stance, I don't wish to be painted as a Whig supporter (I keep thinking we're involved in early 1800 politics here). I was just trying to keep things in perspective. Consider my comments mild and from a "way-outsider". Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a war zone. You, and your perceived allies, and your perceived opponents need to urgently stop looking at it that way. Wikipedia is not for ideological struggle. If you have seen an editor wishing death on somebody else, post the diff to my talk page and I will block them indefinitely, without any 48 hours discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a public forum for free speech. Editors who come here for reasons other than to collaboratively build a high quality encyclopedia are routinely prohibited from editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Better said, you, your allies and your opponents. I for one don't see it as such. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my comment accordingly. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be curious if you act upon your words above to block Randy B indefinately. I provided the link to his message of hate above (twice). My reference to the article on [homeopathy] being a war zone was in the light of the fact that this article and its related articles have been under probation. Believe me, I would rather that editors would do less edit warring, and my role here is to provide V, RS, and notable information so that wikipedia can maintain good and high standards of informatin. My point above was that Whig has shown great civility despite the dramas around him. Editors that have had content disputes with him are not objective observers on the issue, and they should identify themselves as such so that uninvolved editors can assess the situation. As someone who appreciates Whig's content contributions, I simply want him to be given a fair analysis (which I do not think he is getting by a vast majority of the editors above)DanaUllman^Talk 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a direct link to the diff in which this took place? The link above just leads to another complaint of yours about this, which seems to link to yet another complaint... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether Randy B. made a death threat or not, I am afraid that Randy B. is on a fairly negative trajectory at the moment. Unless he can reform himself, he will find himself in the same sort of hot water that Whig is in at the moment. I hope Randy B. can learn to collaborate cooperatively with others. Whig unfortunately does not seem to have been able to do that. All I have seen out of Whig is tendentious argumentation and wikilawyering, and absolutely no contributions that are of any positive value for the encyclopedia. Just fighting and we do not need more of that.--Filll (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support has been established for a 6-month Whig topic ban on Whig

Based on the support established at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed short topic ban for Whig, and the fact that the only "opposes" come from individuals on the same side of the general homeopathy battles as Whig, but with all the additional uninvolved Supports, there appears to be a clear and balanced support of enforcing a 6-month total topic ban on Whig from homeopathy/science articles. There may or may not be support for an outright 6 month ban. At the very least, Whig will be banned from editing, or posting about any homeopathy as detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Above probation.2C what it would_entail:

A 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to User:Whig under any username.

It appears this is enabled now per community consensus of uninvolved users. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "uninvolved" users? Could you explicitly spell out who you considered to be involved and uninvolved, as not everyone can tell that at a glance. Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig notified. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have logged this at User:Whig/Community sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I request that an administrator who did not comment above confirm this result. Lawrence Cohen is not an administrator, and while the result of the discussion is clear, our process for creating community sanctions does not specify whether an administrator or editor should record the result, nor whether an administrator participating in the discussion should close. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should change a thing that Lawrence closed it and notified Whig, but for what its worth, I concur. Consensus was clear support for the 6 month topic ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(to no-one in particular) My reading of #Proposed short topic ban for Whig is that there is considerably more support for a full ban of 6 months than a mere topic ban. Several supporters of the full ban detailed why a topic ban would be a worse solution than a full ban. The same cannot be said of those supporting the topic ban, who said little actually against a full ban. – Steel 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I supported a full ban, but would accept the topic ban on a trial basis. If problems continue or shift to other venues, we can discuss upgrading to a full ban. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, there may or may not be support to fully ban him. There was clear topic ban consensus, though, so I closed that bit out. Either way, it's final straw time. Whig is a smart guy, he may end up doing good work the next 6 months on the rest of the site. If not, he'll be gone soon, unfortunately. Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would prefer that someone present a concrete reason why, given a clear (IMO) consensus for a full ban and good reasons against a topic ban, we should favour the topic ban. Doing things on a trial basis is good sometimes but not when it will create avoidable extra work for the same end result. – Steel 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because consensus can be wrong. I prefer that arbcom decide on cases of indefinite banning. Rump opinion in the community (especially one as large as this) is a bad way to call for indefinite bannings in non-obvious cases (and yes, I realise it might seem obvious to you). Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about an indefinite ban, and Whig can get the ArbCom involved if he feels consensus was wrong. – Steel 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy that so many editors that are involved in editing in the topic area supported the ban - it would have been better if more uninvolved editors had commented (would I have been considered uninvolved?) - but I can confirm that the above process does represent a consensus - a consensus of whom though, is not entirely clear yet. I'm also unhappy that the ban length started off as 31 days, and then became 6 months, and that there was no clear process of starting and finishing the discussion. It all seemed to come together ad-hoc and on-the-fly in response to Whig's initial posting. The appearance (at first glance) is that the AN posting by Whig prompted the following community ban discussion. We should try and avoid appearances like that, as we don't want to discourage people from posting here. I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points; (2) People declaring their interest and article involvement (or uninvolvement) up front; (3) Clear presentation of evidence (that did happen here); (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves (that also happened here); (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment". Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page probably isn't the best for that sort of thing (the CSN page mentioned elsewhere could be dedicated to that) and something this severe should be structured better. But if people try to push that, the anti-process wonks will descend. :( Lawrence § t/e 16:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It should avoid becoming mini-arbcom, but equally I don't think the above haphazard process really works. People say a dedicated noticeboard turned into "Votes for banning", but the above process looked like "votes for banning" as well. I remain unconvinced that the community is coherent enough to deal with cases like this (by which I mean that coherency is found in subsets of the community, and this can lead to bias in decisions), and that the community shouldn't be afraid of passing such cases to arbcom. Well, what I really mean is that indefinite bans (which didn't happen here) should not be handed out by a sometimes capricious community, when arbcom doesn't presume to hand out indefinite bans. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to define the process by contributing to Wikipedia:Community sanction. It would be good set expectations. Anybody is free to request arbitration at any time if they dislike the result or process. Likewise, any decision here can be appealed here and if there is substantial support to change the result, so be it. Additionally, you criticize lack of participation by the uninvolved, and at the same time criticize "votes for banning." Which will it be? If we encourage lots of participation, it looks like votes for banning. If we post a result and ask "does anybody object" we do not have votes for banning, but we have decidedly less participation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig has stated he intends to appeal, as is his right. The problem with going through yet another administrative procedure is that they are extremely disruptive and involved, eating up hundreds of hours of time and essentially wasting precious volunteer effort and goodwill. How many hours have been devoted to Whig's situation already in 3 RfCs (4 if you count the one he brought) plus assorted AN/I proceedings plus endless negotiation and fighting on the talk pages? And how many productive edits from Whig did the community get in return? We might easily be spending 500 or 1000 man hours per productive edit or more. At what point will the community realize that the methods that were developed when WP was smaller and a different sort of place do not work any longer? So in this sense, I agree with User: Carcharoth. All the methods we have for dealing with this sort of situation, including what just transpired above, basically stink. We need to think creatively about what we want out of procedures to deal with these cases, and how best to implement them, using some sort of cost-benefit analysis.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Would you agree with the five points I raised above? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I too support Carcharoth's concerns that the vast majority of people who have commented here (including me) have voted in a predictable fashion. We need more outsiders' POV. The one outsider to date who has expressed thoughts here, [Tanthales39], saw "fishy" allegations. This editor made it clear that he is not a "Whig supporter" and yet, he seemed to wonder where the beef is...and so do I. I hope that there is NO 6-month ban until some more outsiders weigh-in. DanaUllman^Talk 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I agree somewhat. Let's examine them one by one: (1) Clear start and end points; Yes clearly useful and obviously not so well done in this case. (2) People declaring their interest and article involvement (or uninvolvement) up front; This would be better for outsiders to be able to identify who is who. Those of us involved know, but outsiders do not. (3) Clear presentation of evidence (that did happen here); Yes we have some evidence, although to be honest this is just a tiny fraction of all the evidence that exists in this case. It would take a tremendous amount of time to compile an exhaustive record, or even a crude summary. Clear evidence is valuable to help outsiders evaluate the situation. Those of us who have lived with this for 6 months or more are very familiar with the particulars and do not really need to look at much more evidence; we lived it. (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves (that also happened here); He has had an opportunity to defend himself; he has not always taken these opportunities and I think his defense so far has been somewhat underwhelming, although some might argue that he did not have enough time for a good defense. He will get another chance or two or more when he appeals however, and then his case can be made at his leisure. (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment". I understand and partially agree. However, in this case, there have been several votes for a community ban already over the last few months which were overwhelmingly in favor of more editing restrictions if not a total ban. However, the community has given him "one more chance" several times, and not much happened. Unfortunately, this tends to create a situation where the subject does not believe that WP is serious in these cases, since they have escaped punishment over and over and over. This is not a "heat of the moment" situation here, but just the case of someone who has had maybe three or more "last chances" and has failed to take advantage of them, and continued to figuratively spit in the face of his fellow editors (and I have been told in private communications by both proscience and proalternative medicine proponents that the atmosphere on these pages is so foul that they do not want to contribute). Also, our failure to ever act on these "threats" and "last chances" sends a powerful signal to other malcontents and warriors on these pages, on both sides of the issue, and gives them tacit permission to escalate their disputes and engage in bad behavior themselves. We could wait another week, but would it change anything after 6 months or more of "last chances"? Maybe this should be codified in some sort of standard procedure, but I do not think it was unfair in this case, at all.--Filll (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There actually was a significant amount of uninvolved input, though it was perhaps drowned out by involved editors. A series of uninvolved admins and editors felt that Whig's conduct justified a full or topic ban; perhaps most significant was User:East718, who was formerly Whig's mentor and now supports a ban. I agree with several of Carcharoth's points, the largest being that it's best to declare upfront one's involvement when commenting on something like this. That said, given Whig's determination to go to ArbCom, that is perhaps the appropriate next step as all of our other bureaucratic processes for dealing with this sort of thing have been hammered ad nauseum. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be too little, too late, but I consider myself an only tangentially involved editor, and I fully concur that the comic opera otherwise known as Talk:Homeopathy would be better served by relieving it of the editing pattern shown by Whig there. For full disclosure, I also believe that there are other editors there who could improve the discussion by drastically altering their editing habits, or in lieu of that, not editing there at all. And in at least one other case, this appears to be happening. In both cases, I defer the severity to the community, but add that this may (or should) be the tip of the iceberg. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors who have expressed procedural misgivings about this discussion are invited to review the history at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing. The guideline originally required a consensus of uninvolved editors because of concerns that partisans to various conflicts would drive out minority voices. About a year ago the uninvolved editor clause got removed from the guideline. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Community sanction which contains process information. We need to decide whether to merge or do something else with this page. Regardless of the form, we need to record a process for establishing community sanctions so that these questions of fairness (How long does the discussion run? How do we count involved/uninvolved comments?) need not be revisited each time. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We also need to make sure that those procedures make clear what is being proposed. There is serious reason to doubt whether the consensus above is for a 6 month broad topic ban, or a 6 month community WP ban. Procedural fairness necessitates such questions be addressed. Such discussions also should ideally be linked from AN or AN/I, but not held there, as these are community sanctions, not administrator sanctions. Ultimately, it may be appropriate to revoke the sanction on Whig, sort out these questions and then, follow the agreed procedure to make a decision. However, such should only occur if Whig was in agreement. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to restart this discussion on a subpage. For fairness, I suggest the following:

• Discussion lasts a minimum of 48 hours, or as long as uninvolved editors wish to discuss the matter. Involved editors cannot prolong the discussion with endless stonewalling.
• The discussion will be closed by an uninvolved administrator who has not participated in the discussion.
• Specific text of the remedy will be proposed. If no administrator objects, the remedy will become effective. If an administrator objects, the remedy may be modified and re-proposed.
• If it becomes clear that there is an difference of opinion amongst administrators that cannot be resolved through simple discussions, then the matter can be referred to arbitration upon request of any party, and the Arbitration Committee will decide whether to hear the case or not.
• If a sanction is placed, Whig has the right to ask the Arbitration Committee to review the decision. The review might be an expedited procedure or it could be a full case, in the Committee's option.

I hereby request that the existing sanction be suspended until these procedural issues are addressed. We should not place sanctions that are in any way questionable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you probably want to modify the first point to request some disclosure related to involvement - otherwise, who is to judge what "involved" means? I think the third and fourth points are unreasonable - and frankly, encourages an 'us and them' view of the admin/editor relationship. We are not talking about an indefinite ban - where the 'no admin will undo' standard is used; we are talking about a community imposed sanction, and whilst admin action may be required for its enforcement, I don't see any reason for an admin veto. A more reasonable notion would be that a period (say 24 h) is set aside for any editors to propose remedies, which are to be discussed until consensus is reached - but no new remedies may be proposed after the 24 h. In the present case, it seems likely that two options will be considered. In line with ArbCom practice, I suggest that a maximum time limit of one year be applied for any proposed sanction. The closing uninvolved admin (or even bureaucrat?) can evaluate what the community consensus is, weighing the views of involved and uninvolved participants, without reference to admin/non-admin status. This admin should also have the option to reopen the discussion as 'no consensus'. We should also formulate a standard set of terms for enforcement before a discussion of proposals begins - similar to ones from ArbCom, most likely - so that enforcing admins have guidance as to enforcement action, whilst retaining appropriate discretion. We need to give some consideration to the question of 'evidence' and format. I suggest an approach like ArbCom RfAr would be suitable - presentations (of whatever length) by anyone who chooses to offer. A separate section for response (in this case from Whig). Another section for 'voting'. No threaded discussions on the 'case' page, but allowed on its talk page. Thoughts? Finally, I reiterate my earlier point - reconducting in this way should not occur without agreement from Whig. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is too complex. If the existing decision stands, Whig can appeal to ArbCom. The community has resolutely rejected the idea of "votes for banning". If we look at the consensus of editors, the partisans to this dispute with be highly incentivized to disrupt, bring in new friends, and it will turn into a circus. When we site ban editors, the standard is no admin willing to unblock. We should use the same standard here, to prevent drama and ensure fairness. I think this discussion over process should move to Wikipedia talk:Community sanction. We should hammer out a fair process, without regard to any specific case. Once we have agreed on a process, then we should be able to process cases with much less controversy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions about process, and I agree 'vote' is a poor word choice on my part. However, I completely disagree about the standard. No admin willing to object for a fixed length topic ban is outrageous - it means any admin involved in a disputed area can prevent disruption from editors agreeing with their perspective being usefully addressed. It gives admins an unregulated power to act in relation to content disputes in which they are involved. Further, it is a COMMUNITY sanction we are discussing, and this is not about use of tools, so everyone is supposed to be equal. Admins are not supposed to have any extra weight in presenting ArbCom evidence, expressing views in deletion debates, etc - why should they be special in this area? The closing admin may weigh contributions differently - and long-standing and respected editors (admin or not) are likely to carry more weight, which is fine - but an admin veto is unacceptable. I am happy to move the rest of this discussion to the talk page, as you suggest, but I wanted to register here that community sanctions are imposed by the community - and we are supposed to be equal. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but if you look at WP:BAN the standard for a community ban is "no admin willing to unblock". Do we really want to have different standards for topic bans and community bans? Please answer at Wikipedia talk:Community sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with a cabal of a obstructive editors POV and OR

I've been dealing with what one could call the "haunted houses" of Wikipedia: the Killian documents-related articles. They are seemingly abandoned and derelict, with unref'd assertions and lonely "Citation Missing" tags left unattended for ages. But if someone decides to pop in to try to fix things up, then all of a sudden all sorts of ephemeral characters come out of the woodwork and things get very, VERY busy and strange. But not exactly in a good way given that the poor encyclopedic state of the Killian articles never changes. The central problem appears to be that the article is protected/owned by a group of editors who not only have little or no interest in fixing/improving anything, but who actually actively oppose anybody who tries. Past issues and clues indicate that most if not all of these obstructive editors are affiliated with the conservative/right wing blog site, Little Green Footballs, which also has a bit of a vested interest in the Killian business -- it's their main claim to fame.

I had thought to try out the dispute mediation process by following up with a suggestion to start at the bottom with WP:3O. Since I know this is a messy, complex situation, I thought to start a new discussion section on the Killian documents Talk page concurrent with a WP:3O request, and made a section note the WP:3O Talk page for interested parties to watch what happens. And sure enough, this is what ended up happening as is typical -- tortuously drawn out "discussions" consisting primarily of ad infinitum instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and chronic violations of the part of WP:CIVIL that goes, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I may be mistaken here, but this seems to make things now more of a concern to WP:AN since this type of purely disruptive behavior is a separate matter from content disputes. (PS: the WP:3O request was eventually declined because of there being more than two editors involved.)

Even when I have all primary and secondary sources on my side, never mind elementary logic, and the obstructing editors literally have nothing to refute with, they still won't give in only anything significant, with this last sectional sequence being a good example. The issue here is whether these possibly (and possibly not) forged military memos should be referred to as, well, memos. This sounds stupid and minor, but it's actually quite significant: military memos ("Memorandum for Record," "Memo for file" and such) have certain recommended and accepted formatting characteristics, like for instance how the signature block is on the right side, as opposed to it generally being the left side for more official documents. Every single available ref indicates that these are memos: descriptions and examples in both the the official USAF writing guide, The Tongue and Quill (PDF pgs 139-176), this ROTC powerpoint presentation, as well as any available samples, like this for instance. Even further, both CBS and USA Today, who had originally and independently obtained the memos, also clearly refer to the documents as memos.

For any other Wikipedia article, all these unimpeachable ref's would have been much. much more than enough to resolve the issue, but not with the Killian articles -- not only do all these ref's get chronically ignored no matter how many times I try to draw attention to them, some editors have gone so far to try to even self-reference the article itself as a ref: [33], [34]. To me this seems overall to be a textbook case of chronic gaming to block changes, regardless of how much they would improve the article, and to discourage anyone from even trying.

Some of you might wonder why this "memos" bit would be so significant and why would anyone bother to go to such extreme lengths to keep this rather innocent sounding term from being used, especially if it's inarguably an accurate description. Well, for one thing, memos are not archived like other military documents. For instance, this DoD repository of George Bush's military records doesn't contain a single memo. Only when they are classified are they archived, like this other declassified memo. What happened is that a lot of would-be Sherlocks in both the blogosphere and even the mainstream media kept comparing the format of the Killian memos to that of Bush's DoD records, and they misread the format differences as being an additional sign of forgery, especially the position of the writing block being on the right (where it's suppose to be for a memo).

So basically having a Wikipedia article simply accurately describing the memos as being, well, memos actually undercuts a large chunk of the forgery claims. It even throws suspicion on the credibility of the supposedly independent panel review that CBS had commissioned to investigate the matter: in the panel's final report on page 156 (by PDF count), the evidently less than investigative investigators also thought the signature block was suppose to be on the left side, and used that as another reason to come down hard on the CBS personnel who had dealt with the Killian memos.

Such a little word, such big consequences....

But more to the point here, what should be done, or what should I do further, to deal with obstructive editors apparently chronically and willfully ignoring standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nevermind WP:HONEST and basic manners? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Note that I'm not an admin, just watching this page.) I've looked through the issues there, and it seems obvious that there is indeed a problem. I think the next step you should be taking is an article RFC. That should get some outside opinions on this issue from people who are more qualified than me to judge the issues. (Politics would probably be the best category there.) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I second this motion. These editing patterns as bound to occur on such controversial articles, so filing an article RfC is definitely the best option. нмŵוτнτ 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc is now blocked. I think we all know what it means when a single user with a long history of blocks for tendentious editing and a very narrow set of editing interests complains about the "cabal" of "obstructive editors": in most cases it is an indication that all is as it should be, and that POV-pushing is being resisted.

The description above bears little resemblance to the truth; far from being abandoned, these articles have been the subject of relentless POV-pushing by Callmebc combined with vitrol personally directed against one of the cited sources, which has resulted in several OTRS tickets and related exchanges over several months. I went to get the references and found yet another complaint this week from this person towards whom Callmebc apparently cannot bring xerself to remain civil. Since Callmebc was unblocked on the understanding that tendentiousness and disruption would cease, and tendentiousness and disruption clearly have not ceased, I have reinstated the block. OTRS ticket#2008030210009128 is the latest, others were at OTRS ticket#2007111410017735 and OTRS ticket#2007103010015799. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems about right. Ronnotel (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I must say that the sheer cheek of attempting to re-activate this issue by presenting it as a newly found issue from a previously uninvolved party is due some grudging acknowledgement... Does anyone need review the basis on which Callmebc was last unblocked, or is this moot following Guy's actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, giant balls of brass (though I believe BC is female), but minus many many marks for smartness bringing this here in these terms - the complaint might just as well have stated up front that "I demand the WP:TRUTH be told and these people must be banned for insisting on WP:V instead". Guy (Help!) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the block. The involved user has a long history of disruptiveness and uncivil behavior toward editors, and, on the whole, has not been particularly helpful here. This is all evident by the myriad blocks for the same reasons, including one that was supposed to be indefinite but was retracted in a promise Callmebc would behave himself--clearly not a promise he has lived up to. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So I don't commit the same "sins", could someone point me to definitions of "tendentiousness and disruption" and how they relate to article authoring and editing?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TE, WP:DE. Also WP:NOR, WP:SOUP, WP:LAWYER in this particular case. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Favour requested from nice admin

Please can you give me the text of the deleted Template:User_vomit?

Thank you 81.149.238.64 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "This user just vomited all over their computer. Ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". You're welcome. At one time, this was apparently considered "divisive and imflammatory". Grandmasterka 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thought it would be more interesting than that. I've been reading a lot of old policy pages recently, will be an expert in no time. 81.149.238.64 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's divisive. What if someone thinks vomit is beautiful? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will admit, depending on what I've eaten, that on rare occasion, I've found my vomit to be, well down right pretty. A challenge: eat too many cheese puffs and tell me that the vomit isn't simply a spectacular shade of orange. On the other hand, one of my janitor jobs, like most good janitors, is to clean up vomit.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LMAO at Cyde's deletion reason... --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can never have too many But think of the Children!!!! posts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Grandmasterka gave was the lame one. At one point the template looked like this: Neıl ☎ 10:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism

Can an admin please address this? Cheers, Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple users were not finalwarned and/or inactive. Please remember to follow the directions in the header of the AIV page. Also, the bot will automagically add and remove backlog notices. Thanks for helping out, and cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 10:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admitted Sockpuppet

• 64.149.212.221 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) User has admitted [35] being a sockpuppet of indef blocked vandal Burgz33 on the Wikipedia:Long term abuse page. Recently seen blanking content on Pigeon John‎ page. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month; but looks like an AT&T semi-dynamic IP address, so that may not be worth anything. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. I just noticed the IP after looking through another users contributions and thought it was important to let someone know. I figured one less vandal here couldn't hurt! --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major CAT:CSD backlog

Can a few admins please come help out at CAT:CSD? There's a major backlog there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on, I need help with this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Only two pages & 1 image remaining. Caknuck (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's SUPER_ADMINS!!! Marking this resolved, cat empty (for at least a few minutes anyway.....)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a game or something serious? I just get the feeling that when there are backlogs, some admins race each other to try and clear the backlog. I personally would prefer 10 admins do a few items slowly, rather than 1 admin do everything fast. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] possible vandalbot

Anyone else notice a lot of vandalism along the lines of this: Here. Appears to replace every newline in a section with an instance of _nl_

Seen it quite a bit tonight/this morning. A lot a just random IPs doing. The behavior seems to suggest vandalbot, but I dunno. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP address seems to be doing it too slowly to be a vandalbot, unless you know of others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I've seen other IPs that were reverted by others. Also I had speedied a talk subpage that contained just _nl_. That's what originally led me to thinking possible vandalbot, cause I remember reading somewhere that there's a certain bot that creates tons of subpages. But, yea you're right, it hasn't really happened enough to be a vandalbot. Was expecting to see more if it after I made this report. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way (like with hidden cat's cat) to track pages using the NL magicword? That would show any longterm trends. MBisanz ^talk 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List:

• 139.30.45.41 (talk · contribs)
• 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs)
• 85.214.68.204 (talk · contribs)
• 194.55.112.104 (talk · contribs) (created template talk that was deleted)
• 195.75.146.229 (talk · contribs)
• 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) (This one has some regular vandalism)

Well 2 of them are from Germany (one's a university) and the other is from Australia, so I'm not sure their related, unless its some werid proxy thing. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't now much about IPs, but judging from style of edits I'd say they have to be related. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Try running this by Ryan, he knows a lot more about IPs and proxies and what not that I do. MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 70.253.45.45 (talk · contribs) found by a quick Google for wikipedia+"_nl_" ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

and 66.135.55.196 (talk · contribs) (created category talk that was deleted). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Def something bizzare going on here 195.75.146.229 belongs to IBM Italy. Makes me think of a case I had earlier this week at [36] with identical vandalism edits from widely dispersed IPs. Just gave up and semi-protected the page. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here there's no one page to semi-protect - this vandal seems to go for a different page each time, and creates talk pages apparently at random. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

139.30.45.41 and 66.135.55.196 blocked as confirmed open HTTP proxies. Mr.Z-man 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing the same thing as Redvers I saw this: [37] made on the 4th, so this has been going on for at least a few days and isn't isolated to this wiki. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And just now 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs). Blocked for a couple of days by me. Is this some sort of HTTP proxy, like the ones that '/'/are known'/'/ to do '/'/ this type of thing? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to blacklist _nl_ (which is something we'd never need in an article AFAICT) so a page can't be saved with _nl_ present? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just have the Devs disable the magic word for the en-wiki. Maybe Bugzilla? There isn't a reason to use it, but I'm sure its already being used places, and rather than create an unsaveable page (blacklisting), simply turning it off might be better. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think _nl_ is an actual magic word (it doesn't seem to do anything), so there's nothing really to turn off. It could be added to $wgSpamRegex, but I doubt they would use that in this case. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I assumed it was a real magicword being used inappropriately. I have no idea how the blacklists work, but if it would stop this sort of vandalism and probably won't cause collateral damage, I don't see a problem with adding it. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this is probably some new variant of the backslashing proxies (badly-configured proxies that put backslashes before quote marks and other backslashes, and often turn out to be open). So the IPs are quite likely open proxies, and almost certainly proxies of some sort, but badly configured and escaping newlines. The problem with backslashing proxies was ended when the code was changed to request that a backslash be sent back with every edit; however, doing that for a newline might be more problematic. So most likely it's a misconfiguration rather than a deliberate vandalbot, but it's harmful either way. --ais523 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

194.55.112.104 and 85.214.68.204 are also open proxies. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 116.72.224.30 (talk · contribs) - [38] on 4 March. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And 62.150.76.244 (talk · contribs) [39], 124.146.168.42 (talk · contribs) [40] and 208.116.54.32 (talk · contribs) [41]. All from 4 March, all found with Google. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated list of all of the above at User:Redvers/HTTP proxies. Should we block? And for how long? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) inserted _nl_s in a run of edits, then came back a few hours later and edited normally. So either the IP was reassigned or the software behind this can be switched off/is browser dependent/something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to see something so I took a couple of the _nl_ versions, replaced the _nl_ with actual lines and compared them to their respected good version and there was no difference in content. Which I find kind of odd. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

I blocked Zenasprime (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours after reviewing this AIV report. However, there is a diff in the report that has apparently been oversighted, so I have no idea what it contained. In any case, this edit doesn’t give me much confidence that the user will behave after the block expires. Comments? Thanks —Travis^talk 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the initiater of that AIV, I'm hardly neutral but I second your concerns about post-block behavior especially with this ongoing rant. The thing is, I'm not sure when/why he went off the deep end as he and I had been having a what I considered to be normal and productive discussion/debate about Tefosav but then come yesterday he appeared to just lose it and become ridiculously pointy. I'd recommend an eye on the AfD when he's unblocked in the morning. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who would have thought...

that there were so many {{future airline}}s? Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Future airline. Mind suitably boggled. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. And? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, how embarrassed will they be when instantaneous matter transportation comes online (perhaps somebody should create a Portal?)LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And learn that the cake is a lie? How dare you. I take pleasure in the belief that each day will end with a tender and moist peice of cake. HalfShadow (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MOAR CAKE PLZ. And Portal 2, si vous plait. FCYTravis (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fun thing is how many of them are unsourced crystal-ballism. Time to PROD. FCYTravis (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Planned airlines has nearly as many subcats. Gimmetrow 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some could be magnates' brainchildren that have failed to take off as expected. Got one of those. And this filters out non-articles linking to the template. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... the first one I clicked on. Mr.Z-man 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CheckPage

Just a friendly reminder of the names at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to keep mentioning this, but there are now requests over 24 hours old. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ultraexactzz who took care of it. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

What can we do to report staff that are harassing us? --Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some diffs that show this? Also, you'll get a faster response at the incidents board if this is happening now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that any of the staff are harassing you. There might be individual volunteers who are doing so, but as Rodhullandemu said, you'll need to provide diffs. Corvus cornix_talk 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is through e-mail that was obtained through here. --Xander756 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then there's very little that anyone here can do for you. And again, I doubt if it's staff. Corvus cornix_talk 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair block (again)- Homeopathy

Administrator Jehochman banned me for one month from Homeopathy because of this edit: [42] [43] I tried to improve the article twice by adding to it a quote in the lead from a reliable source already cited in the article. I invited the editors to discuss it at the talk page but I was reverted without any discussion . I asked Jehochman to intervene so my edit could be discussed at the talk page and he banned me. Please remove the ban –it is quite easy to see what happened we don’t need arbitation for this – I think. Best to all.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the ban precludes doing this, perhaps you'd be better served by simply creating an account. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do. Thanks. But this is not related with the issue.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your one-month ban from Homeopathy topics, if it stands, applies to you, under any account. What is your new account name? Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor is not blocked, they are topic banned. See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. "Again"? Did you get banned before under a different account? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not.Again I meant all the editors you block because of their POV. Justify your ban or whatever you call it, please.

--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All the editors you block because of their POV. It is hard to take an accusation like that seriously when no diffs have been provided. The justification for your ban is visible on your talk page, and in your edit history. You have been disruptively editing the homeopathy article and related pages. Just today you did two POV pushes,[44] and [45], which had to be reverted. This, in spite of many past warnings that you have received.[46] [47] [48] We do not need this sort of editing at Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not receive any justified warnings - Look what the other administrators say below. Dont you agree with them? [49] Again,I added a quote from reliable sources already cited in the article wrote - I invited editors to discuss it - I was reverted without discussion and you banned me.These the facts and the diffs are here. [50] [51] I think arbitation will solve the problem. I thought you made a mistake in the beginning.I m waiting for an administrator to procced. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and related articles are under probation. That means the bar for sanctioning inappropriate behavior is set very low, because there has been so much of it. For probation to be effective, there has to be some discretion afforded to the admins enforcing it. I see no evidence presented that Jehochman is in any way "biased" against specific points of view; I do see evidence presented that your presence on homeopathy-related articles has been counterproductive. Therefore, a topic ban under the terms of the probation is reasonable and justifiable. If every enforcement of this probation turns into a lengthy complaint about systemic injustice, then the probation is actually worse than useless. Let's move on. It may also be worth checking this IP against Davkal (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal, perhaps, but this IP's syntax and complaints bear a strong resemblance to blocked user Sm565 (talk · contribs) (whose user/talk pages are, for whatever reason, deleted, even though he's a confirmed sockpuppeteer[52]). The checkuser may want to look there as well. Skinwalker (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any reasons or diffs MastCell. The fact is that I was banned unfairly when I was inviting the editors to discuss the changes and reverted without discussion. adding a quote from a reliable source. I think arbitation will solve the problem if the ban cannot be removed.I m confident.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the noise that has been made about homeopathy by now, I'm confident that arbitration will solve nothing. JuJube (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MO looks like Davkals. Shot info (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category for Deletion Archive?

Please tell me how to check if a category has been nominated for deletion in the past and find the previous discussion?

I found that there are monthly logs kept of cfd's, each month separately.

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates

This is huge. Is there a way to search through all the log files in one search? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Google. Example. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd behavior, possibly by school users

I'm not sure what's going on here. The below users have almost no productive edits.

• HollyNoelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Orinatoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nathancampis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alphahunter57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alphahunter58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

There are several deleted pages in which they simply declared their love for one another, or were complete nonsense. The rest of their cumulative edits are to each others' user pages. I'm guessing they are school kids, but I'm not sure. This didn't seem appropriate for a checkuser case, so I'm brining it here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is a recent similar incident. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indef'd the lot of them as Disruption/Not contributing to the encyclopedia. I'll drop the relevant template on their talkpages now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemic Dream

In response to an OTRS ticket, I have removed this content from the article, and placed it on the article talk page. I have also engaged the editor at the user talk page. I don't know if the editor understands our policy on the verifiable sources, or not. So I have to assume good faith, this is probably an editor new to the project. Protection may be of some use here, I have however met 2RR on this one. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The content needs to be removed. "an interview with some former employees dealing with this company" well, that's not a suitable source. It's not been published anywhere we've been told of, so we can't confirm the contents, it's not exactly a reliable source anyway, and there is all sorts of POV and legal problems with an interview with (a) former employee(s) making the sort allegations in question. When there's a reliable third party source publishing the allegations, then we can look at this again, but at the moment, the content needs to be removed. Nick (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

Since one of our most energetic vandals seem to be suffering from diarrhea of the typing fingers, I've temporarily semi-protected the page. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've unprotected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts so that IPs/new users can actually post there now! Something to add to a few watchlists, perhaps? Bencherlite^Talk 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Already on mine. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation

There are a number of users making redirects to the page Hou Yifan. Most of the redirects are unrelated to Hou except in that they are chess-related (and they all appear in a certain ChessBase article) -- many or most of them did not exist before they were created in this way. Most of them are the names of non-notable Turkish chess players and coaches.

I have tried to deal with some of them but I realized how huge the problem was when I tried to redirect one of the pages somewhere, and discovered that the target I tried to set up was already a redirect to Hou Yifan. I suspect there is sock- or meat-puppetry going on (although probably sockpuppetry as the users have very similar edit patterns, including creating a user & user talk page before going on the redirect spree), and I could use some help in dealing with this.

The users involved include:

• Eddy^kid (talk · contribs)
• FaustXmen (talk · contribs)
• Gfeig9940 (talk · contribs)

There may be others, but if so, I haven't found them.

--128.12.103.70 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Most redirects deleted, except one for the Chinese version of his name. The above accounts were also indefblocked, though anyone can remove/reduce the blocks if they feel I'm too harsh - stress from real life might be getting to me. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef block seems mostly justified to me considering that puppetry was probably going on, and in particular due to Gfeig's use of deliberately misleading edit summaries. Thanks much. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at this in detail, but this could be just some editors making innocent mistakes. The redirects weren't vandalism, though they might have been COI for Google ranking (not sure whether redirects affect that). Please, if you suspect sockpuppetry occurred here, don't block on the basis of "probably", but consider filing a request for checkuser instead. I'm also unclear how creating redirects like this is actually disruptive. Can anyone explain? Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now taking more time to look at this. Firstly, Pegasus, Hou Yifan is a girl, not a "he". Secondly, there are currently four redirects to this article (see here), all of which are name variants. Three by other editors and one by one of the editors that was blocked here. The other redirects are, as 128.12.103.70 pointed out, mostly non-notable Turkish chess players or coaches. These deleted redirects were (with their edit summaries):
    • Kubra Ozturk (resolution 432)
    • Kübra Öztürk (resolution 382)
    • Ayca Fatma Durmaz (gfdl public domain variation)
    • Burcu Sasmazel (resolution no. 483)
    • Özgür Solakoglu (opponent redirect)
    • Yesim Patel (←Redirected page to Merged data)
    • Yesim Patel (merged data - mistake)
    • Volkan Sevgi (RfD March 2 2008 decision)
    • Turkish Youth Championship (merged Winner 2006)
    • Burju (redirect "nickname")
    • Turkish Chess Federation (temporary redirect - head coach)
    • Turkish Chess Federation (see previous edit mistake)
    • Özgür Akman (name change redirect)
    • Faruk Sahin (Hou Yifan's press officer)
  • That is a total of 11 redirects. Many are inappropriate, but calling this a "huge problem" seems to be overstating what happened here. Do we really block indefinitely for this sort of behaviour? The Chessbase article in question seems to be this one, about a current chess tournament. Some of the edit summaries are confusing, but not all. I also see from here that one of the editors had apologised before he got blocked. One of the others was warned. One was never warned on the talk page. It is possible these were either inexperienced users, or (and maybe I'm now too tired) they were redirect vandalbots trying to appear to be normal editors by using hit-and-miss edit summaries based on the article they were getting ideas from for the vandalism?? Anyway, could someone else take a look? Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The following from 128.12.103.70 was posted at my talk page, and I'm posting it here on behalf of the IP editor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to respond to your comments on the AN but the page was sprotected, so I'm responding here.

In your list of redirects, you missed a few which I made into pages or redirects to the right targets. These were Chess career, Betul Cemre Yildiz, and Türkiye Is Bankasi. As for the disruptiveness of the actions, I just had a bad feeling about it because these were names of real, independent people (young chess players) being lumped under the name of one single chess player. It seemed like a very demeaning statement to make about those players, many of whom will have careers of their own (and some of whom may eventually deserve Wikipedia articles) -- that they're all just insignificant compared to Hou Yifan.

Finally, as for the issue of sockpuppetry, I'm no expert, but I doubt that RFCU would have accepted the request.

The accounts were created very close together in time and seemed to be SPAs. If I had to guess, I would say that this was probably a group of friends who decided that they would do this for a lark, rather than a single user, but who knows? I did warn two of the users on their talk pages, but when I discovered the that there was actually a third one I gave up ("two times is a coincidence, three times is enemy action"). --128.12.103.70 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look disruptive, I agree. I don't think indefinite blocking was the correct response. I've asked Pegasus to comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked all of them. On hindsight this appears to be a one-off incident of edits that amount to borderline vandalism. Nothing more. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If the disruptive behaviour restarts someone can talk to them or even reblock if needed. I'm marking this resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Teh interenets is full of eggshells armed with hammers". Most threats of harm are not credible. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Largely irrelavent, all threats should be taken seriously until proven otherwise. I'm not agreeing to a set-in-stone policy regarding to this, but it's fairly recognized here that acts of violence, suicide or other acts causing harm to someone or themselves should be reported. — Κaiba 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS stands in the way of supporting this. Do we really want to put this idea into people's heads? Durova^Charge! 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Durova. If the community has a "we will deal with threats seriously and by calling the proper authorities" policy, people will exploit that, just to make the community look stupid. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL at the shortcut. Not having to type those extra two spaces is a real timesaver! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

^demon, you honestly think editors of this website want the chance to exploit that the police may or may not show up on their doorstep for making a silly edit to Wikipedia? Again, I feel the only thing we should have is an essay, not a policy, on how to deal with those situations, but there are editors who are not afraid to do so, including me, and I have done so before. — Κaiba 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the fake suicide threats we've dealt with before, yes, I do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is somewhat the point. I think that's more the reason why if there is a essay that says that we will treat them seriously then we will get less of them. Who would make a fake suicide threat when they now know the police will show up? — Κaiba 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to drop an anvil on your head for suggesting this as policy. --Carnildo (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How often do we get threats of violence? How often have these threats manifested in real-life violence? This strikes me as an attempt to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. – ClockworkSoul 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We gets threats of bombs, suicide, etc. every week or so to be quite honest. In fact the last incident was two days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School? How many times has that resorted to real-life harm? I'm not sure, but everytime that I've reported it, it turned out to be a joke by someone who didn't think we would report it. — Κaiba 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a response plan for things like this is not in itself bad, especially since Jimbo has said we should operate as if these threats are generally real. However, in fact, these threats are generally not real; most people making them just want attention, so they might make hoax threats, make real threats and back out of them, or make ambiguous threats and claim, loudly, that Wikipedia's reaction is bogus – or, they might make real threats. A pernicious minority will be joe jobs or attempts to injure a third party by forcing attention on them (Police or otherwise). We don't want to encourage any of these, least of all the genuine ones, but I don't see how we can have a prominent policy page like that without it attracting more such threats to the wiki. If anyone wants community policy on this, step one is to figure out how to have that policy without attracting badness. I'm afraid this page doesn't do it. I'm not trying to crap in Bstone's cornflakes, here; our typical reactions to this sort of thing are badly disorganized, even among people who mean well, and attempts to fix this are laudable. The WP:BEANS issue needs to be fixed first, though, or this policy makes more trouble than it can ever prevent. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon Kaiba's probably right that the root of the recent broo ha ha was a misplaced joke - but I think the best way to deal with such things is to be very clear that all wiki folk will do is contact an authority and kick the ball into their court. There's no doubt in my mind that that's the right thing to do - and if the page can communicate that in as simple and mundane a fashion as possible, then it might also help avoid good-faith editors having to cover the same ground repeatedly - a good thing, no? Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion can be moved to the proposal talk page? It's entirely on topic but would be best for there. Thanks. Bstone (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dick.ellershaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This person is the intellectual property manager for a UK company making portable buildings, particularly the trademarked Portakabin & Portaloo versions. A quick Google shows that he is enthusiastic in protecting the company's trademark. Over the last week he has been going through our articles editing references to "portakabin" etc to "portable building", and similar. I have left a {{uw-coi}} on his talk page and advised him to contact the Foundation, but as I understand it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) only deals with style of rendering trademarks, not with their use. I would argue that as "Hoover" has become synonymous with "vacuum cleaner", so has "Portakabin" with "portable building". Some input would be useful here. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, him. He gets coverage in The Times for this sort of carry-on. I've seen plenty of edits where he changes a linked Portakabin to a generic "portable building" thereby removing incoming links to his own company's article, plus the even more counter-productive edits like this where he keeps Portakabin yet removes the incoming link. Judging by his letter to "Carve", he's intent on removing any reference to the trademarked names, yet in this edit the source I used to write the article specifically says Portakabin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that he should talk to his company's advertising agency; after all, whether the articles refer to his company's product or not, they are still getting totally free, worldwide publicity. But having read some of the Googled articles, perhaps my "enthusiastic" above was a gross understatement. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to be getting a bit of a reputation, having even made it into The Guardian's manual of style for journalists ([53], page 246 of the PDF), curiously next to the entry for pyrrhic victory. But this seems to be a situation which WP:BFAQ doesn't seem to cover: we're more worried about companies unreasonably adding references to their products, rather than removing them! --RFBailey (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that the Guardian are saying it's a Pyrrhic victory to order magazines and newspapers not to give your company free publicity by mentioning its products? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I've never thought a pyrrhic victory equivalent to "shooting oneself in the foot". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just have a bot go through and change all instances of "portaloo" to "portable toilet"? Unless there's a real reason to use "Portaloo"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure Dick's on the case already...... --RFBailey (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA participation needed to offset canvassing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to anonymously contact users encouraging them to oppose Benjah-bmm27's RfA via the Special:Emailuser function. The full extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained for sure, though investigations are ongoing. In order to dilute the effects of this attempt to manipulate consensus, I would ask as many users as possible to look at this RfA and evaluate the candidate. To this end, I have extended the RfA so that it has a full day to run. Please take the time to visit this page and provide a fresh perspective on the candidate. I would like to express my thanks to those users who approached me having received the emails in question. I strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA that give rise to suspicion that this part of an organised campaign of advocacy to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention. WjBscribe 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Post edited in line with discussion below about circumstances where one should contact a bureaucrat. WjBscribe 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

given that the opposes there at present come almost entirely from established editors, giving reasoned arguments, I do not see how canvassing is likely to have had much of an effect. Certainly I participated there, and nobody emailed me about it. I question whether a counter-canvass is a reasonable way to remedy canvassing on an AfD. I'd have worded that first line of the posting above as "... encouraged them to vote in a particular way." DGG (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting people support to balance opposes that may have been canvassed - if I thought that was sensible I would just have closed the RfA making some kind of allowance in evaluating consensus - instead, I'm asking for more people to form an assessment of the candidate. I don't really think there has been "bad faith" as such on the part of the participants, but I do think from the details of the canvassing I have seen that the balance of contributors may have been distorted. That is I think remedied by keeping it open a little longer and asking more uninvolved people to take a look. WjBscribe 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But it may be coming across that you are suggesting people support to balance the opposes [54]. Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi WjB, I wonder whether this is problematic. You wrote that you "strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention." When you say "off-wiki," I'm assuming you mean more than just by e-mail, so this would have to include comments on IRC and on other websites, but as you know, these are common. So where do you draw the line in determining what kind of comments or canvassing might require a bureaucrat's intervention? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't like the idea of someone being encouraged to oppose or support, whatever medium is used and would consider an extension of time in cases where the RfA was coming close to an end. I'm not suggesting everything needs to be reported, a discussion somewhere like IRC may well touch on an RfA and discussion may follow without it being problematic, but actual advocacy of a position is troubling. In my view its particularly where one receives a message that makes it likely that a series of other such messages have been sent that its especially important to say something about it. I trust people's judgment - do people think someone is actively advocating a position in such a way as the result of the onwiki discussion may be distorted? If so, please speak up. Obviously email has the advantage that people can forward the actual email, complete with information about the source, whereas instant messenger conversations may be harder to document. Ultimately though, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and extend the discussion so the effects of campaigning can be diluted, and campaigning can be discouraged. WjBscribe 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking in particular of comments on IRC (I'm paraphrasing) such as "User:X -- YES!!!!" and a link to the RfA, followed by "Those opposing bastards ...," another link. Although no one is actually saying "please go and vote for X," the advocacy is clear. I find this much more troubling than sending out individual e-mails, because dozens or even hundreds of people may be watching the discussion. And yet comments like this are not uncommon on IRC, and bureaucrats have been in the channels and have seen them, but I've never seen an objection. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour you describe is not acceptable. Its different to email - one can at least judge how many people were in the channel - though not what fraction looked at the screen at a given time, which can be pretty low. One can also quickly correlate how many people who were in the channel then joined the discussion - whereas recipients of an email campaign are totally unknown. I don't think I've observed such clear cut behaviour on IRC - I can assure you that if I did see it I would both comment in the channel and look into appropriate steps to dilute the effect. What steps would probably depend a lot on the effect of the canvassing and the amount of time a nomination still has to run. WjBscribe 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to take issue with e-mails being worse. If prominent IRC users are saying or implying that people should vote for User X, that could prove absolutely decisive, because they exercise a degree of influence over other people in the channel. But a single-issue account set up to inform people about an RfA is unlikely to persuade anyone to vote in a way they wouldn't have voted anyway. What such an e-mail would do is draw attention to the RfA, but without being particularly persuasive, because anonymous.

The other difficulty is that, if a very poor candidate is standing, I want to be told about it, and I would prefer to be told privately so as not to prejudice things for the person by having an inappropriate public discussion. You're basically saying that people are not allowed to do that, and I really don't see that as reasonable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, they should inform you on your talkpage so it is clear what communications gave occurred. This isn't about one person giving another a nudge, this is about systematically emailing a group of users selected by an unknown criteria asking giving them a one sided argument and asking them to act in a particular way. We have a pretty clear behavioural guideline at WP:CANVASS which makes it clear that this sort of "stealth canvassing" is not something the community accepts. I have agreed that the IRC scenario you laid out would be inappropriate, I am saying this is also inappropriate. I would hope that if you wanted to know about poor candidates, you would follow current RfAs attentively - alternatively you could have confidence in other members of the community that is a candidate is indeed "very poor", they will not pass. I do not see a justification for the email canvassing that occurred here. Further, I think that if someone proposed an amendment to WP:CANVASS to allow for contacting users in such a way, it would be roundly rejected. WjBscribe 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that creating an account just to canvass is inappropriate, so I have no quarrel with you on that score. But I still feel your statement that you "strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki ... to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention" is too sweeping, and if it were taken literally would involve large numbers of RfAs having to be extended -- e.g. whenever they're discussed on another website or a blog, for example.

I think editors have to be allowed to e-mail people and say, for example, "Would you mind taking a look at ...". There is nothing wrong with this within reason, so long as it's not done anonymously and doesn't involve huge numbers of people. I do take part in RfA regularly, but I nevertheless want to be kept informed in case I miss something. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I had not intended my statement to be taken that literally - I was assuming people would exercise some judgment in deciding what should or shouldn't be reported. Perhaps I should add "in such circumstances that you have reason to believe this may form part of a campaign of advocacy aimed at multiple users"? WjBscribe 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. I think it might also be helpful to add something to the new IRC guidelines that RfAs ought not to be discussed on the channels, because of the possibility of comments being interpreted as canvassing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would presume that whoever sent those emails picked their audience on the basis that they might be inclined to certain points of view, which to me smacks of poisoning the well; raising the matter here where, as you rightly point out, hundreds may be reading, sounds more like creating a level playing field where those who take part in the RfA will assess the candidate on his merits as demonstrated by the material available there. That's how I see it anyhow. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no issues with canvassing, right? RFA's are supposed to be determined by well reasoned consensus, not by numbers... right? <very innocent look/> --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) If not, then canvassing is probably the least of your worries. :-P

I personally suspect User:Nrcprm2026, since Ben has had problems with one of his sockpuppets User:LossIsNotMore on the Uranium trioxide article. Has a checkuser been run to see if the throwaway RfA account is related to any of the IPs recorded for that sockfarm? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

TIm, the IP the account used was an open proxy. I've sent you a copy of the email, though, as you might recognise who it is from the text. I normally try to be careful about privacy and such but when you use socks to try to sink an RfA any expectation of privacy is null and void in my book. Sarah 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actions of Lykantrop

Over the past week or so there has been a large discussion over the type of album that Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is, primarily between I and Lykantrop. You can see the discussion at Talk: Slipknot (band). We have been at a stalemate for a while now so I requested comment a while back but that didn't receive any replies and I then asked for mediation at the mediation cabal. It was decided by Kagetsu Tohya (who is an outside mediator) that it should be declared a demo album after reading our discussion on the Slipknot talk page. I made edits to coincide with this decision to Slipknot Discography which were later removed by Lykantrop stating that they were vandalism on the grounds of WP:V and WP:POV. However all other parties in the matter agree that it is a demo album and we have reliable sources which claim to be. He has since stated thast he rules out the mediators decision and has reverted my edits to Slipknot discography twice now. I am reporting him for his behaviour because it is very uncivil and it appears he is the only user who disagrees with the decision and yet his arguments against aren't sustainable. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I must comment this: I explained the problem at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability question - a band and they told me that the former attitude of the band and proffesional's view have more weight than band's later attitude after the band stopped to support the album per WP:SELFPUB and I think also WP:NPOV. I was only presenting a fact with multiple reliable sources both from professionals and from the band (Which you can see directly next to the Mate.Feed.Kill.Repat. in the Slipknot Discography). If somebody deleted the sources or the album, please watch the last version of the article by me. Retzer (and no one of the few users) did not show me any reliable sources that would refutate my statements. The edit is according to every of Wikipedia's rules including assumed good faith. Thanks for reading my comment. Lykantrop ^(Talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and there is little that admins can do if there is no breach of policy. You (both) need to (a) sort it out yourselves, (b) seek a third opinion, or (c) try dispute resolution, preferably (a). In any event, how much does it really matter? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issues that I have with your claims are;

• That you interpret the use of the term "album" by the books and Shawn Crahan as "studio album" were prior to this they clearly call it a "demo album" then later refer to it as an "album", as a shorter term.
• The main reason for the band creating it was to demonstrate to record labels their music and get a record deal, they were never going to release this through a record label as their debut album.
• 5 out of the 8 tracks have later appeard on Slipknot and Iowa.

I also disagree with the way you have worded it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability question - a band. You are saying that all these sources proclain it to be Slipknot's debut album, which none of them do. The only sources you provided were lists of discographys which included it, they never said "MFKR is their DEBUT ALBUM", I have 3 books which state it is a demo album and that it was only to help them get a record deal. Again I am sorry for posting this here because again this is turning into a content dispute but I constantly have to battle against the way he interprets sources. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place AGAIN!! I really don'tt know ere to get this whoel thign sorted out. We had a mediator invovled and Lykantrop ignored him whole heartedly. I then tried to seek the Arbitration and they sent me here. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This really should not be necessary. Admins do not rule on content disputes, which this is. You've had a third opinion, Arbitration is inappropriate and I suggest you now open an request for comment on the article, but it really looks like a minor point of detail and doing that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone

Take a look at this link to imeem and tell me if it's allowed [55]? I don't think it is, and I keep reverting them, but now I'm on the edge of 3RR and I don't fancy getting blocked over a stupid imeem link. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing the right thing. Any more and report it to AIV. Rudget. 11:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV appears to be backlogged atm. I reported two people a half hour ago and they're still not blocked - and are still continuing to vandalise. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear now. There is often something of a backlog on AIV around this time; the majority of our admins are from the US or Europe, so when the US is asleep and European admins are at work or college, this can happen. Black Kite 12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

It would be appreciated if an administrator could delete this redirect. Per an arbcom ruling, I am fairly sure that trivial changes to a redirect are allowed to be ignored when moving a page back. This page was moved for the umpteenth billion time to a (naturally) more POV-pushy title away from a consensus version. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aids POV

In Aids:Stigma the final two lines convey that conservatives are less likely to be informed about HIV transmission information. Citations cited are citations 132, 134, and 135. 132 only gives one isolated example of a conservative and one other of an antigay activist being biased against, not misinformed, about the relations between homosexuals and HIV. 134 does not say anything about conservatives. 135, however, initially states that they expect misconceptions to be held by conservatives. However, later in the document, specifically in the final paragraph of page 16, the study notes: "The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgments rather than political beliefs." This means that not only does the citation actually contradict the phrase in the stigma section, but rather, in response to an argument made noting that the phrase said "significant predictor", could even be interpreted as meaning that liberalism is also conducive of being misinformed about Aids. Either way, to say that a political party, whichever it may be, is more likely to be misinformed about Aids is in conflict with the citations. The final four words of the section in question are "or conservative political ideology". This phrase is, as I have presented above, clearly POV. When I tried to remove the phrase, the revert was undone by an editor. When I later presented this rationale, he refused to hear it, and he and another editor (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) reverted all my attempts to remove the blatant POV without providing correct rationale for their reversions. Several times my edits were reverted with them not even making a single comment on the talk page, when the phrase was clearly under discussion and they knew it. Quoting the wikipedia policy for Tendentious Editing: "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". No rationale has, of yet, been provided that is valid rationale. Furthermore, Wikipedia:verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." No evidence has been provided, yet these users (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) continue to stop me from removing the POV. Please help, perhaps by weighing in on the discussion (the new discussion, as the old one degenerated into name-calling) at [56]. I'm not defending conservatism, I'm defending NPOV.Merechriolus (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for dispute resolution. AIDS is one of our most heavily-watched articles, so one option is to let things sit for a day or so and you'll likely get input from some of the regulars, many of whom are solid and experienced Wikipedia editors and may be able to help resolve this. Another option is to request outside comment via a formal request for comment on the matter at hand. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will request comment (under science and technology, unless you would like it in Sports, Law, Society, and Sex) if my most recent withdrawal of the POV phrase is reverted again. I waited at least 40 hours after my last edit to be sure not to violate 3RR. If appropriate rationale is not provided, I will also update this section.Merechriolus (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to continue WP:3RR by gaming the system is not appropriate.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your input, marley. If you have something to say, I would be far more interested in your rationale for reverting my removal of the statement in question.Merechriolus (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We group Sports, Law, Society, and Sex into a single heading? That's interesting. I'd put it under Science/Technology, or perhaps Politics. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has reverted my most recent removal of the POV statement without providing rationale in the discussion on the talk page. No clear reason was provided on the reversion description, bit I quote:"Reverted to revision 197113320 by Optigan13; Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.using TW". Obviously, the validity of restoring the statement like OrangeMarlin just did is out of the question, yet he continues to revert my edits. I would like to request that an admin ask him to discontinue his actions, because he has requested that I not violate his talk page and I will comply, and I will request comment.Merechriolus (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has removed the entire paragraph in which the statement is question was contained. I will wait 24 hours to see if he reinstates the statement in any form; if he does not, I will declare this thread moot. If he reinstates said statements, I will continue to pursue the removal of the POV. If he later restores the phrase in question after 24 hours, I will contact an admin directly rather than go here, because this page has proved to be largely ineffective in my pursuit of the removal of the phrase (other than mastcell's suggestion to ask for comment, thank you.) If, by 10:00 PM of Tuesday, March 11th, the phrase is still not restored, I will withdraw current pursuits and requests relating to the phrase in question. I'd just like to thank Orangemarlin for coming around and making this easier for all of us here at wikipedia. However, if an admin would like to comment, the comment would still be more than welcome.Merechriolus (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a day and pretty much everything is resolved, so I'm declaring this moot now, but will allow the admins to remove it at their own discretion. Thanks.Merechriolus (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unbanning

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved from talk - Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

I was advised that this is the place for making a case for unbanning editors.

I would like to request that User:Lir be unbanned (agan).

The user is required for participation in editing/authoring articles as part of Military History project Eastern Front revamp/expansion. While I appreciate the difficulties Lir has with Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia admins have with him, these issues seem to me to be quite separate from his ability to contribute to Wikipedia content.

Lir has expressed to me that he wants to contribute productively to the articles in question, and has demonstrated this ability, albeit his edits were undone by another editor based on the banning, and having foregone any discussion in talk. Given Lir's personality, and history, this seems to have been an expected result. I dare say that behaviour in administrative realm does not equal poor article content assumption.

My proposal (I'm aka mrg3105) is that Lir is unbanned on the basis that he limits his contributions to project articles and lets bygones be bygones. All discussions should be limited to article talk pages.

There is a lot of editing and authoring to do there, and I would ensure Lir has what to worry about as part of the team of editors and proposed project parameters and goals.

It seems to me that people like Lir need a bit of mentoring and understanding, and for lack of it they become perennial banned editors, literally since Lir is clearly not masochistic, but has been banned, and unbanned since 2002, including by Jimbo Wales. People with that much dedication, even if exhibiting a degree of self-destructiveness, should not be excluded from Wikipedia because, although seen in a negative "light", are also the best advocates of Wikipedia, and its best defenders.

I do not think it will be productive to dwell on the past. I propose that Lir be brought back on a 6 months probation to allow him to demonstrate ability for editing without seeking administrative recourse. Is this acceptable?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shattered Wikiglass (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we JUST do this? Or am I confused? I seem to remember that Lir came back to Wikipedia very recently. - Philippe | Talk 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Seems to have gotten reblocked pretty quickly - see the history of User talk:Lir. Sarcasticidealist (talk)

Yep, let's put a quick end to this please. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no reason to unblock (again). Lir simply wasted whatever chance he was given, stirring the pot rather than contributing. - auburnpilot talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't participate in earlier "history", so profess impartiality with a strong bias towards inclusivity of editors capable of contributing to the project. Actually, with all the arguing of his case in admin, Lir also managed to contribute to an article, and, as an editor, I did not find him difficult to deal with. I have seen the history, but the history am interested in is his active contribution to content. It seems to me that had he not been encouraged to participate in administrative cases, eventually his demands for justice in an undemocratic community will have turned to editing articles. It seems to me there are two separate issues for which only one solution was sought. One is claims of administrative "due process", the other, the ability to contribute to content. Has this banning thrown out the proverbial "baby with the bath water"? Are there actual clams of bad article editorship on Lir's part?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point it's a dead issue, but he had fairly baleful effects on DNA, Christopher Columbus, and Saddam Hussain, as well as several articles on imperialism. I don't think the DNA article ever recovered. It's really not worth your time and trouble to investigate, but if you want to, those are the places to start. His editing at Colin Ferguson (as "Vera Cruz") was also fairly typical. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one scratching my head over why would a day-old account ask for unbanning of a user with who he has no past communication? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't see any recent edits (since last year) in those articles. I'm asking, what has Lir done since his most recent return from a ban to be banned again?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

His contributions since being unblocked include edit warring, repeated incivility and a threat to abuse sockpuppets]. Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So where are you involved in this Euryalus?

In any case:

• re: edit warring - I can actually speak for myself on this. Lir made contributions to the article Battle of Stalingrad, most of which were were valid, if possibly needing some references. These were summarily undone by another editor with no discussion in talk, and based on one source of his own. On my questioning, the editor offered to revert the edits. It seems the "edit waring" was somewhat justified (and mislabled) since no editor likes their edits undone without talking about it first.

• I can safely say that what you may consider incivility is probably part of Lir's personality of "give as good as he gets". Should all societies "screen" for such personalty traits at childhood and eliminate such disagreeable people? In any case, incivility takes at last two "to tango". A fiery personality does not a bad editor make. What it does take is cool heads, and if Lir lacked one, then obviously so did the other party. Where there no other editors that could have intervened and called a "time out"? It seems not.

• Threat of using sockpuppets is not actually banable! One has to be caught being a sockpuppet to be baned for it as far as I'm aware. For example if I threaten you now with being uncivil towards you, I can't be banned since I haven't actually done anything that would warrant such action.

So, why was it that Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed - such intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy, and you've only been around for a few days. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's almost Lirlyrical. (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter since anyone can have spent years reading Wikipedia, but never contributed. However, this is my other ID of the primary ID User:Mrg3105. I had to create it for technical reasons that are only partially related to Wikipedia (I suspect). In any case I note that both Ed and Nihonjoe were able to contribute biting sarcasm, but not to answer the question. Is it any wonder people with shorter fuses become frustrated?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternate explanation - they have shorter fuses. JuJube (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is absoloutely not. I provided him with a clear and reasonable framework under which he could be unblocked, which basically amounted to stop being disruptive. He did not accept it and wikilayered himself into having his talk page protected. If he wants to be unblocked he has the means to do so. As a side note, the reason your account status is being questioned is because Lir had his 1 year block extended several times for sockpuppetry, so its not surprising that people are questioning who you are and why you are interested. Viridae^Talk 08:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that this for example can be dismissed as Lir harmlessly "giving as good as he gets" but whatever. There seems to be no support for an unblock for the reasons outlined above and also in the earlier thread on this topic. I'm not sure how productive further discussion is going to be on this point. Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have added Shattered Wikiglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lir based on editing pattern; smells more than a little of WP:DUCK to me. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• According to Thatcher, the magic 8 ball says Unrelated, surprisingly. Got to assume this is actually Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) as they say they are. Though why the new account just to agitate in favour of Lir, I really don't know. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have established that Guy has a bad sense of smell, and REDVEЯS doesn't care to read what others write, can I be removed from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lir? It seems good faith is only a byword for some who claim Wikisainthood.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What amazes me is that most of the people that had appeared here are not in the history of User:Lir. Not only that, but assumption of bad faith is endemic in the comments above. Not one person has pointed me to any sort of arbitration page where the evidence was used to arrive at a ban.

Pointing to Lir's outbursts may need to be contextualsed by the User:Calton's proclamation on his user page ""It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that." The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost."

It looks to me like Calton is "on a mission from God"! Should maybe add all "bad guys"? As I understand it, this all started when Calton decided that Lir's user page had inappropriate content in Calton's opinion? Right?

Now, so that I don't get banned by Calton, can I get an idea how "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" are defined in his moral code? Has this been enshrined in Wikipedia?

In regards to Calton, I seem to have already been labled per this ingenious observation "The rule "birds of a feather flock together" seems to be in force. I've never quite understood why axe-grinders and stalkers think that banding together gives them some kind of credibility, as the more applicable rule is, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." --Calton | Talk 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"

Of course this is no "rule", but an English proverb derived from translation of a Roman zoological observation that "As commonly birds of a feather will flye together." I note that the only commonalty all participants in Wikipedia have is that we are all different! We are also from English speaking cultures, and therefore come from cultural backgrounds markedly different to the one Calton is residing in now. Mores of social behaviour are far more individualistic, and these individualisms are in fact defended by real, rather the proverbial "rules", often known as constitutions.

I suppose according to Calton I now have the proverbial "fleas" for trying to work out why a contributor to an article I was collaborating with was suddenly baned?

Calton, knock off your "moral crusader, holier then thou, defender of Wikipedia" act, and stop labeling people. If you don't bate the "dogs", they won't bite [www.ddfl.org/behavior/dogbite_guide.pdf]. If you treat them as human beings rather then lables, you may even learn something about them.

For the rest, can someone point me to the place where the decision to ban Lir was made? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not an anarchy either. If Lir was guilty of something, it ought to be describable in one sentence as a cause for the ban? Right?

Where is Golding when one needs him?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can read his block log as well as anyone. "Exhausting the community's patience" is the basis of WP:BAN, and it's what appears to have happened here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all too often people in Wikipedia tend to read edits and "history" rather then the editors. Think about it.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image help

Copyright isn't my strong point, so I could use a second opinion. Image:Johnmunch.jpg (a copyrighted screenshot of a television program) is being used in the article for the fictional character John Munch as well as in the article for the actor who portrays him, Richard Belzer. While there is a fair-use rationale for both, I don't believe that such an image can be used in the Richard Belzer article. Is this the case? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct- in the article on the actor, its use in the infobox meant it was being used to identify the actor, not the character. A free image of the actor could be located or created, and so I have removed the invalid rationale, and removed the image from the actor's article. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) faithless (^speak) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite block on Ehud Lesar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is hereby reversed as it has not been demonstrated that he is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Necessary actions will be performed by an arbitrator. The sockpuppetry accusations are found to have been made in good faith. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proxy?

A recent edit by 64.210.144.214 replaced his userpage with [57]. Suggesting that this may be an open proxy. Could someone investigate this. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been blocked, suggesting that the blocking administrator tested it before blocking it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy. I went to the URL, and the IP that the proxy gives is the IP above. It's blocked, so this is resolved... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Merkey

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BBC news article

Apparently people are now reporting Jeff Merkey's rather idiosyncratic interpretation of his dealings with Jimmy, and people are adding that to the Wales article. Needless to say, Merkey is rather a long way off base - no undertaking was ever offered in return for donations, and I (among others) made it perfectly plain to him at the time that no such undertaking could or would be given. But then, Merkey is a real oddball, as we all know. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that smearing Merkey is going to make us look any better in the press. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go as far as saying that it's the other way around - Merkey is smearing us. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's smearing Wales. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smear? I don't think so. Jeff Merkey is pretty self-aware, and would be among the first to admit that he opinionated, and downright odd sometimes. I Like Merkey, he struck me as a decent man, but his interpretation of events is definitely idiosyncratic to say the least. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your comment specifically Guy, it was more of a thought-out-loud - it'd be better for us not to dismiss Merkey as being a bit of a loon/oddball/kook/whatever and just report on the allegations factually as stated in the sources and not dignify them with much of our time. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention is needed howso? Viridae^Talk 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, yet. But this is the administrators' noticeboard. It can be used for giving notices of interest to admins. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Its pure content - the claims are being repeated by the BBC so its not as if there isnt RS to back it up. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I reserve the right to draw the attention of administrators to any hotly disputed article or topic on Wikipedia, for reasons which should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone disputing the inclusion of the allegations in Wales' article yet. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong here. We don't use this place to work out truth or significance, or who is smearing whom in the press. Use the talk page to work out content applying BLP, NPOV and WP:V as usual. Anything else is for chatrooms and mailing lists not for wikipedia, unless you want to take out an RfC on either Wales' or Merkey's ON-WIKI activities.--Doc^g 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My point, exactly. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But Guy is not the only one to want to give a head's-up notice to the community of Wikipedia admins. With breaking news stories like this, it is good to get people clued in fast. My (more neutral) post on this was at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BBC news article. There should be some way of posting news like this without being told to go away. Didn't there use to be a news section on the Village Pump? Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Carcharoth on this one. This is not an incident requiring admin intervention, that's why it wasn't posted on ANI. This is a noticeboard to make admins aware of developing stories and ongoing events, so I think AN is the perfect venue for such a notification. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because I posted at ANI! :-) You are right, I should have posted here at AN. I just wish my post had arrived here before Guy's post that (however truthful or clueful it might be) will be interpreted as an 'attack is the best form of defense' response. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the likely knock-on effects on Jeff Merkey, Jimmy Wales, and other concerned articles as the various trolls come out of the woodwork, giving a heads-up about this newest bit of trollfood seems perfectly reasonable.

But that's the trouble. When you have reliable sources like the BBC reporting both sides of the story, you can't call it trollfood any more, or those who point to the BBC article as trolls. You have to swallow hard and be polite and stick to policy and sources (as we should always do anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they reported both sides here, only Jeff's side. And Jeff is wrong. I told him so on the phone, and I was of the opinion that he had accepted that (part of the reason I unblocked him, in fact). Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To steal from American economist Paul Krugman, "One of my lines in a column -- in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally -- was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' Then they'd quote some Democrats saying that it was round." So, yeah, the BBC is reporting a "Shape of Earth--Views Differ" story. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but how do we say that, as Wikipedia editors of the article, without some source to back that up? Do you know how bad it looks when those editing the article say they "know" this is all wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton, yes, precisely. And Carcharoth's point is also valid. We have this situation with agenda-driven reporting by people like Cade Metz, who report only those whose views serve their agenda. It's a problem. I have no solution, other than for the Foundation to mobilise its communications committee and actually respond to some of these stories with "official" accounts of what went on. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, are you talking about your unblock of him from May 2007? The block log is here. And the BBC article says things like In response, Mr Wales has called the allegations "nonsense"." and "Jay Walsh, a spokesman for Wikipedia, told the Daily Telegraph that the allegation was "absolutely false" ." In fact, most of the article is given over to the rebuttals and denials by Jimmy and the WMF. It is mostly the lead-in to the article that has Merkey's claims. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The problem with the piece is the tone; it builds Merkey up as some industry Titan before reporting that others dispute it. Calton's "Shape of Earth" comment sums it up perfectly. Although I think Jeff Merkey is a lot smarter and cooler than Shrub (I know which I'd rather have a beer with, anyway). Guy (Help!) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I hope you recorded your phone conversations with Merkey. Given his history, it would have been extremely foolish to discuss anything with him without being able to produce verbatim copies of those discussions to refute the misinterpretations and misrepresentations which could obviously be expected from him. --MediaMangler (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, cynic tho I be, I did not record it. I don't think Jeff is evil, I think he's a great guy, but weird. Hell, even he thinks he's weird! Guy (Help!) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Guy. Let's leave the RS issues at the article's talk page, with any questions about Guy's prior conversation with Merkey left at his talk page. For the rest of us, let's just add the article to our watchlists. Trolling or incidents like this, may require admin intervention. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I had forgotten to watchlist Merkey's article (d'oh!). I am trying to contact him to work out a framework by which he can comment without violating the ban, since it would be very harsh indeed to extend or reset the ban simply because of his commenting on an issue in whihc he's directly involved. I'll talk to the arbs as well. As I think I made clear, I like Jeff and would like to see him back. He was trolled off the 'pedia quite deliberately. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The fallout of the last two weeks is entirely due to wrong-headed efforts to spin the truth resulting in people who are not credible having wikipedia articles white-washed so they look credible and then when they attack us publicly people take them seriously. Stop white-washing articles of living people. Not everyone is credible. Articles on people who are not credible should not give the impression that they are credible. I note someone's edit above indicates the BBC article is a 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' type article. Well, read our article on Jeff and see if you can see that the white-wash has created the same thing in that article. Jeff's opinions about anything do not have credibility. So said a US judge who ruled that he lies and creates his own universe. We do ourselves and our readers a disservice when we misrepresent published reliable sources that indicate that the subject of an article is notorious for being a liar. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since JVM has evaded his ArbCom ban with this edit [[58]], I am asking that his one year ban be reset. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please don't do that. Like I said, I'm trying to get him to engage nicely, especially since the article is about him. It's scarcely fair to hammer the guy for commenting on his own article, especially since we have no proof that's him and not one of the SCOX trolls making trouble (yet again, as they have a very long history of making trouble). Guy (Help!) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, the address traceroutes through his private space. "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com", That IS proof. If he has concerns about his article, he can deal with OTRS. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff needs to be indef banned for his continuous manipulation of Wikipedia and its admins though offers of gifts (on a wiki mail list he offered a free computer to a top admin - makes me wonder what other gifts he has given, prehaps to admins that think he's a great guy?) and attacks of wikipedia to the press and legal threats and conflict of interest editing of articles. He is Trouble with a capital "T". WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be in any hurry to get Jeff back here editing, and it's probably inaccurate to say he was simply trolled out of here since he brought a significant portion of his troubles on himself. My only experience with him, which as far as I know played no major role in his block though it certainly could have, was at Reformed Egyptian. There he combined personal attacks - particularly against Mormons, which basically meant everyone who disagreed with him including me even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist - with what was probably the most tendentious pattern of editing I have ever seen (it got so bad I actually e-mailed JzG, who was sort of mentoring him at the time, about the situation which admittedly did seem to help). I think Merkey probably really likes this project, but most of the time he is quite impossible to communicate with on-Wiki and sort of makes up his own rules as he goes along. Nice guy, smart guy, liked by Guy - no matter. He's really not worth our trouble and it's probably better if he stays blocked. I agree with Guy though that it would behoove us to let that last edit slide rather than simply resetting the ban.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

True dat. I've asked him to email me to fix any issues, and have alerted the arbitrators. I see no pressing problem with him commenting if the debate at his article gets out of hand (as it has multiple times in the past), but it would be better if he left it to others to do the spadework. Quite a lot of us seem to be watching the article at present, which is good. I think the article tells us all we need to know about Merkey: he is something of a hothead, with a very strong (and sometimes misplaced) sense of right and wrong. As long as we're fair to him I don't think we'll see any problems here. As an aside, "go to OTRS" is not a great solution right now as OTRS has long backlogs and can take quite some time to fix even BLP problems. Anyone interested in fixing that can start by talking informally to Cary Bass. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal from voluntary 1RR

I am hereby withdrawing the 1RR which I had voluntarily decided to stick to for 2 months. However, I shall of course not indulge in reverts tell some admin here clarifies if there is any other procedure to withdraw a voluntary decision. Thanks. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This restriction was by community consensus. You have not shown community consensus indicating that you should no longer be bound by 1RR and thus, it still applies to you. See WP:RESTRICT and WP:ARBCOM if you wish to have this restriction lifted. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here is the archived WP:AN discussion thread. Ronnotel (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Yamla, it wasn't "voluntary", it was a community sanction. If you think you've turned over a new leaf and want to have it reviewed with a view to removing it then you need to appeal to the community but given the editing restriction has only been in place for about eight days, it is highly unlikely anyone will want to champion your cause. I'm not really sure why you think that this was a "voluntary decision" but it was clearly imposed as the result of a community discussion on ANI. Sarah 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[[59]] This is the link - where is the explicit community decision???? DemolitionMan (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• PUt it this way: if you start making more than 1RR, you'll rapidly find yourself blocked for disruption. Dress it up how you will, OK? Guy (Help!) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Demolitionman, that thread was clearly a proposal and discussion of a community sanction and was closed as one - look at the final comment by Jehochman. Also see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community which notes that you were placed on editing restrictions by the community. I'm not sure how clearer you need it to be... Sarah 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I had clearly and lucidly stated that I would accept the 1RR voluntarily only for this article - much to my surprise - it has been arbitrarily been decided my one individual to restrict me to 1 RR on all desi-related articles without any community decision. In light of this breach of faith, I have withdrawn the self-imposed 1RR. So, I would like to know where is this decision? I just want a link - that's it. I am obviously not going to break any rule, so I would appreciate it Guy if you spoke more politely. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the mis-understanding is in how community decisions are measured. In general, WP:CONSENSUS is the standard that's used - which basically means everyone may not agree with a decision, but everyone does agree to abide by it. In this case, the community consists of administrators (those capable of enforcing the proposed restriction). The fact that the proposed restriction was presented on this page and received some support, and, importantly, no dissent, was the basis that I used to determine that the restriction had been agreed to by the community. As an aside, I think you might have an easier time in editing if you learned more about how WP:CONSENSUS works, because the same principle is in use at Indian Rebellion of 1857. Ronnotel (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of disparaging redirects

After seeing that EncMstr deleted the redirect page Client 9 and protected it against recreation, and discovering some similar ones, I deleted them (all 7) and protected them. Ordinarily, I prefer to confirm that deletions should be done before I do them, but in this case, due to BLP issues, I figured that I should first delete them and then ask. Was I correct in the deletions and protections? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but they look fine to me (all variants of "Client 9", and I assume all pointing to the obvious place). Anyone who knows to search for "Client 9" (etc.) knows where to look in the first place, and the target is potentially an explosive BLP problem due to the nature of the material. These can always be recreated later if there's no longer a BLP problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point in time, someone is going to refer to "Client 9" as an offhand reference and someone will look it up to figure out what was meant. We should have that redirect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And when there is a reliable source that shows that the individual is actually Client 9, beyond doubt, then I would agree. We're still in the allegation stage, at this point, with no conviction or incontrovertable proof as yet - so, unfortunately, this would amount to a tacit confirmation that the individual is indeed client 9. While that's extremely likely, given the situation, it's not confirmed as yet, unless I really, really haven't been paying attention. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that while some of these may be things that a person may put in the search box, others (such as Client-9) aren't. I saw what was seemed to be an attempt to try and outsmart the admins by using variations which (they hoped) we wouldn't find all of. And the edit summaries on some of the redirect creations were along the lines of "Hahaha". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular redirect strikes me as useful to readers, but I agree it's a BLP concern and should be discussed -- the key question is whether we have sourcing for it. I've quickly found both CNN and the New York Times making clear reference identifying the article subject as Client 9. At any rate, Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal is either an alternative redirect target or a serious BLP problem (if so, feel free to remove the link). – Luna Santin (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview and notices

66.30.77.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been placing notices for an interview between User:ScienceApologist and User:Martinphi on a variety of article talk pages and user talk pages. I haven't been reverting these, as they are marginally relevant, but I'm concerned that this might not be appropriate. As far as I can tell, this IP hasn't been used for any purpose other than discussing this interview and telling people about it, which raises a bit of a red flag in my mind (which I'll admit might be a bit too much on edge from combating linkspam). What's the general view on this sort of activity? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to get more diverse participation, as per Zvika's request [60]. Figured an anon IP might be a bit less polarizing. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I take it you're a registered user editing anonymously for this purpose? Kind of what I was suspecting. Eh, it might be technically a violation of WP:SOCK, but I'm not that sure it's really a problem. Personally, I think there's zero problem with mentioning this on user talk pages, but I think it might be stretching the rules a bit to place these notices on the article talk pages, as it technically doesn't have anything to do with that particular article. --Infophile ^{(Talk)(Contribs)} 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any form of healthy interaction between the two experienced and knowledgeable if strong-minded users, as opposed to a continuation of the never-ending requests to get one or the other of them blocked on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, would be quite welcome to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with the existence of the interview (perhaps a bad choice of titling on my part). It's just the leaving notices on article talk pages I was concerned about. But since no one's stepped forward to say there's a problem with that (or are they all distracted by the Mantanmoreland case above?), I'll leave it be... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB favor

Could a nice admin go and clear me for AWB at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rudget. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfB consensus poll - reminder

The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar will end March 15. If you haven't already, please consider participating. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review of User:Hornetman16's community ban

I know its unusual to see someone ask for a review of a community ban imposed on a user that has presented cronic sockpuppetry after said ban was issued, but this case is different, every time that one of this user's sockpuppets is blocked the same discussion appears on WP:PW, the arguments in favor of Hornetman are usually "should he be given a second chance? he has tried to be a better editor when given the chance", other users have also noted that he hasn't been given a second chance yet. The arguments for keeping his block are his cronic sockpuppetry as well as often using these socks to repeat past disruptive patterns. Now the idea of finally bringing this to the community has been pitched around several times, the user has been in contact with some of the members of WP:PW and has agreed to comply with the community's decision if he is given a review of his ban before the community. Please note that personally I object this unblock strongly and am only taking this action for the wellbeing of WP:PW, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same: he doesn't deserve more chances. What is this... his 1000 chance already? People fall for Hornetman's lies too much, which leads to problems. People have made deals with him, and even told him how to "lay low with socks" which is simply unacceptable. Hornetman's deserves to stay banned, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He's been socking right up until last weekend and has been disruptive on other wikis. He's even gone to the trouble of bugging me about his block on other non-English speaking wikis (in English!). The mayhem and the Utter. Waste. Of. Everyone's. Time last time round was too much to bear again. I'm pretty AGF-y at the best of times - ask others here - but this guy wore me down. Add the fact that he lies about his socking again and again and again and promises reform then doesn't deliver - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Alison, this is as close to an open-and-shut case of "no, sorry, this isn't being overturned for a long time to come" as any. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, per Alison. I don't think we're missing out on much either, he wasn't very constructive even when he wasn't banned. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Alison. Leopards can't change their spots. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - and he's still causing problems on simple.wiki. It's patently clear that absolutely nothing has been learnt - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, I can't possibly support his unblocking. I let my emotions cloud my judgment. He has to stay banned. SexySeaBass 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I support the continued ban. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the community ban. It takes a lot to get banned in the first place...he had multiple chances before his ban. He has also shown that he isn't mature enough to be unbanned. He had a proven sock only a couple of days ago, he's getting into arguments on Simple, he has tons of confirmed/suspected socks, etc. Moreover, in January, one of his confirmed socks vandalized my talk page, as well as others': [61] [62] [63]. Is this somebody people really think deserves a yet another chance? I'm sorry, but I don't think we should humor him by even discussing it. Nikki311 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the unban - absolutely not. Is the lesson here that someone can earn a ban, consistently prove that the ban is warranted through further abuse, and then get unbanned upon request? Avruch ^T 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This was done in order to reafirm the community's desicion so WP:PW can finally continue its work without having to engage in 10, 000 kb conversations everytime one of his socks appears, this way we can source a consensus in order to prevent these from happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note also that Hornetman has now taken to bringing the fight to simplewiki - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Heyyy, the first amendment line, that didn't work before either. :( I really doubt anyone from simple is dumb enough to follow through on that one, but let's keep an eye out nevertheless :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On simple english Hornetman16/Christianman16 demands that I give my opinion as a condition for ending a discussion. That sums up his contribution to SEWP. He is combative, uncooperative and, to use a British English phrase, bloody-minded. Almost two-thirds of his contributions to SEWP have been in the user or usertalk space. I did not support his recent attempt to become an admin, one factor being his apparent lack of commitment to the wikipedia community. I would not support a his return to ENWP-- Barliner  talk  18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) SEWP admin.

Wow, inter-wiki canvassing, that is something that I had never seen before, he is actually bribing users into commenting here in order to drop a disruptive pattern, he will end up banned in simple if he continues there as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Nothing has changed has it? Now that his actions in the Simple English WP have been clearly pointed out I have seen enough. I connot support his unbanning.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd been open to maybe letting him being unblocked if he accepts mentorship--and I was willing to take that up. I'm a pentecostal/charismatic Christian myself, and I figure I can get through to him. But after seeing the cross-wiki canvassing--uh uh. Keep him blocked. Oh, and please get ahold of his ISP. Blueboy96 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide note

diff. So who wants to call the cops? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, WP:RBI I think. Black Kite 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The note mentions me; it is possibly related to threats that myself and other users (Jack Merridew, Gavin.collins) have been recieving from members of another website regarding our work to clear out a lot of crufty D&D articles. There is at least one archived thread in WP:ANI regarding this matter. I am taking no stance about what is to be done about this particular threat. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SUICIDE CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked. We'll let the usual people know, just in case it wasn't a sick hoax though. Nick (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I semi'd Wikipedia:AN as well. Black Kite 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

agian :/ CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly a troll, we have one edit from an IP which is dynamic ComCast, and no identifying information. Black Kite 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen more than one person threaten suicide and then continue coming back to pick fights--both on and off wiki--but I left the editor some information on crisis hotlines anyway. If they're serious, that's certainly a better resource than we are. --Masamage ♫ 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This method of posting the same message in the same place from unrelated IPs which are not open proxies is consistent with the way 4channers have vandalised talk pages and articles I have worked on before. I'm not going to say how its done for deny purposes, but I can confirm that this matches their style. Whether the threat should be considered serious is a different matter. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV I am taking this seriously. As a licensed EMT, I opine we get this fellow help to wherever he is ASAP. Let's start tracking him down so we can contact his local ambulance service and police. According to NetSol, he's located in Houston and on a Comcast network[64]. Bstone (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find them, please tell them to stop trolling. (Seriously though, the second "suicide threat" came from Special:Contributions/70.169.18.67 which previously issued a threat against J Milburn). I think we can safely call this resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RBI, oversight the edits (they have been using permalinks to old revisions to harass Milburn and two other users on their talk pages). Nothing more needs to be done here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Comcast. It was not possible to determine the physical jurisdiction of this subscriber or to reach a Comcast representative by telephone. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems 85.226.112.161 just reposted the threat here[65] tho it was quickly reverted. One might be curious to know that this is the same city and country as our Plano HS threat. Bstone (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the nature of the threat here makes this one in particular not credible, the fact that multiple IPs across a wide area are posting the same content makes it clear that it's trolling not a legit threat. However, if it's near the Plano HS harrassment/threat site, then it might be tied in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd still WHOIS them and call the cops in their respective areas; these IPs have been harassing Milburn and two other users for the past month. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not our business to estimate which suicide threats are real and which are hoaxes. Every suicide response protocol I know is to treat all threats as serious until trained personnel determine otherwise. And if this were a hoax, a knock on the door by some personnel in uniform might not be such a bad thing anyway. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you also contact the ISPs behind the IP replacement edits here? Maybe cops at where those IPs are will get them to stop thinking this is a joke and that they can lose their liberty because of it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We're in no position here to interview the person who made the threat. Given it's odd to see it coming from such wide geographical areas, but there could have been an original legit threat which is now being copycatted by the stalker. Bstone (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the only info we have is from whois saying it's Comcast and Durova has dispatched an email to Comcast informing them they may have an issue, the only next thing to do is call the local police and inform them of the IP making the threat and that it belongs to Comcast. I shall volunteer to do this is no one else does. Bstone (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's coming from a wide array of geographical areas is that this is all coming in from an external forum (I'm not going to say which one per WP:DENY). It's the same for all the death threats on J Milburn's talk page. Revert, Block, Ignore, Contact Cops (for harassment, as that's what this really is), and Oversight the edits. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Jeske. The IP that re-posted the suicide threat on this page resolves to Leeds (UK), whilst the two that are re-trolling J Milburn's user page with the same threat as the one from the "suicidal" editor above resolve to California and Sweden. This is standard off-wiki trolling, folks - I know the procedures for suicide threats, but seriously, don't waste your time on this one (although a knock on the door from the local law enforcement might be useful for some of these people). Black Kite 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So are these all unique threats or from a proxy server? Bstone (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Different people, co-ordinated off-wiki. As above, no further details on here though. Black Kite 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, per WP:TOV I am taking them seriously. I cannot risk not doing so. Bstone (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this I have informed the Houston, TX ambulance folks of the IP and it belonging to Comcast with a threat of suicide. They have said they will take it from there. Bstone (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has also been reported to the Atlanta, GA police. I gave them the IP and the number for Cox Communications. Bstone (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

69.84.98.179 (talk · contribs) has posted the exact same suicide note over at the Help Desk. See #Suicide announcement below. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)