Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428

Resolved

 – Blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's got to do with a series of sockpuppets connected with that user and it's a battle over that user's obsession with and/or trolling about, an AFD'd article he wrote called Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was posting here hoping an admin would take a look at the larger (sockpuppetry) issue to see if it's a better-known sockmaster. Current sock User:Dipolemoment is active at the moment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems our little friend is now claiming that anyone opposed to him/her/it is a sockpuppet of Alientraveller or ColdFusion650.

TheRealFennShysa (talk

) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to wikipedia, and I may have broken some rules, but I apologize and won't do it anymore.... I was just having fun, but I found out it's a lot more fun to play by the rules in the wikiworld than to break them, so I promise to be a good girl from now on (and I'm sure Delicious carbuncle will be keeping an eye on me!) I do want to mention that Delicious is particularly upset because I'm creating a page he and his friends don't like (

talk • contribs

) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the "ad hominem" attacks or withdraw the accusation. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant only as a philosophical interpration of a form of dialectic argumenation, not as a slight. Neverthessless, if it offends you, I apologize and I take it back. :)

talk

) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above user might not be a sock, since he apparently knows how to write in real English, although the broken English of the other users could just as easily have been purposeful. However, the article is under attack, so to speak, simply on grounds of lack of notability. An article about a script that never went beyond the script stage seems a bit excessive. Many films begin with scripts that get significantly altered over time. That doesn't justify a separate article about each one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting timing....

TheRealFennShysa (talk

) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shazam! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if

talk

) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked JTWoodsworth one week for apparent sockpuppetry, and for disruptive editing at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He has recently taken down his extremely dubious user page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet or "close associate" of that user, User:JulieKO, who is still active after being similarly short-term blocked last week [1] is also trying to cover its tracks a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody seems to be looking for attention: see this and this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I finished indef blocking all the accounts Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JTWoodsworth that were not already blocked by others. Conceivably a checkuser may be helpful just because new socks may continue to appear. There is not much doubt about the socks that are already dealt with. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Eiland insists on reordering this list to newest-oldest. User's stated reason (on Wikipedia_talk:Recentism) is 'personal preference'. Reasons against newest-oldest are that there are a group of radiation and nuclear related lists that are all ordered in oldest-newest, so LoCNA should be ordered to match.

I'm requesting List of civilian nuclear accidents be rolled back to "09:08, 21 May 2008" before his first edit to repair damage from edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailedtooth (talk • contribs)

This appears to be a content dispute, in which case you and the other editors involved should work it out on the article's talk page or through

three revert rule violations. You should not be arguing your side of the content dispute here. If I'm missing something please let me know, but otherwise please try to build a consensus for one version or the other. --Selket ^Talk

01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Resolved

In progress on

Protected by User:Anetode. Trebor (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Abtract just returned from his most recent block (48 hour), and has already begun his stalking activities again.[2][3] and contacting the people he was told to stay away from[4].

Related/previous history: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#user:Abtract, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Abtract, still stalking at Aladdin (disambiguation). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective, his first three edits upon returning were all in direct challenge to Sesshomaru's edits. That seems to indicate pretty clearly that he either doesn't understand, or doesn't care. Either way, the lesson that was to be learned from his block has been lost. Disappointing, but pretty clear. Dayewalker (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, some people never learn. Why isn't this guy banned? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for harrassment. Trebor (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be more permamant? – ClockworkSoul 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I won't object. A quick scan of his contributions however suggested he is capable of contributing constructively at times. If he continues it'll end up permanent soon enough. Trebor (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth block for practically the same reason. The subsequent block will be either for a month or we can simply inform him that any subsequent harassment will result in an indef block. I think the latter is appropriate given how many warnings he has received so far. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. If he demonstrates no interest in playing nice, I don't see why he should be able to edit at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User Banned.

Based on the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd, I have indefinitely blocked User:Zerida.

Fantevd was a throwaway account for the purpose of attacking Dbachmann. Fantevd led to a family of accounts all editing from overlapping anonymous proxies (One proxy would have users A, B and C, another proxy would have A, D, and E, and so on). All the accounts edit similar topics. The main account seemed to be Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an old account with 2000 edits, who it turns out was involved in a dispute with Dbachmann.

However, a few of the proxies used by the sock accounts were not actually anonymous, and passed on the originating IPs. There were two different IPs disclosed, about 2 weeks apart, and both of them were IPs that were assigned to Zerida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the same day. The IPs are, as near as I can tell, typical residential IP addresses and unlikely to be shared.

Zerida and Egyegy both protested the findings in email to me. but after sending them a version of this message with my findings they have not replied. I have rechecked my findings; they have also contacted other checkusers, I believe.

Based on the long-term nature of the abuse I have indefinitely blocked the accounts; however, the community is invited to review the situation. Thatcher 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looked it over a bit, and support the indef. Setting up sock accounts to attack editors is really bad form. The timing of the attacks with respect to the dispute, coupled with IP evidence is enough *more than enough* for me to be convinced. R. Baley (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So is Zerida confirmed (most likely) to be the sockmaster? If so, I could undo most of the deletions I did on the userpages. Rudget (Help?) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zerida is on a typical residential ISP, while the other accounts were on open proxies (some of which accidentally tied back to her). Plus, her account is the oldest and has the most edits. So I would call her the master account, yes. Thatcher 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Rudget (Help?) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Thatcher's technical evidence is convincing, I'm OK with this block. Zerida does have some good contributions but this kind of stuff is not forgivable. I notice that Zerida was in some disputes with Dbachmann. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have independently reviewed the checkuser evidence in this case and can corroborate what Thatcher said above. Block endorsed - Alison ^❤ 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eek, seems I forget to include this in the above comments. I endorse block based on CU evidence. Rudget (Help?) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very unacceptable - it goes much further than basic policy violations in my view. I looked through some of the discussion between the two accounts and Dbachmann after I read EdJohnston's note above, and I see some clear similarities between the two accounts through the discussion. I don't think he's unfamiliar with the relevant policies either (looking through his talk page). It brings me to formally ask; is there any admin who is willing to unblock him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't be willing to do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is really regretful to get to know that after a couple of years you now feel that it was so tedious, for all that time, answering the "concerns" of presently blocked accounts. Sockpuppetry wastes more contributors' energies than anything else. I have to say that it was because of Zerida and Egyegy that I decided to stay away from Arab-related articles. I read the discussions now and find it very ridiculous. Pwned but glad I am still contributing to the project. Someone else would have already gone feeling distress as it has been the case in some other areas of the project. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If a couple more admins can add their assurance that they are not willing to unblock him, or if there is no admin that steps forward saying that they are willing, I think the community ban can be logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty shocked by this. I do hope nobody plans to unblock on a whim: this has been sustained troublesome-hand terrible-hand disruption. I came across the two hands at Talk:Egyptian after a post at one of the noticeboards; they certainly played a good game. IIRC, I appealed to one account to help me keep the other account focused on the article....[facepalm]. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Vandals blocked, talk page protected until 9:00 June 4 (UTC), my sanity restored. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of my talk page, and DO SOMETHING!!! I'm about to go out of my mind... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your issue seems to have been solved. Anyone feel like semi-protection on their talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked those who've carried on after final warnings. However, there are still a number of editors who have been reported but given final warnings. Therefore, their names remain on AIV until they are 'block-worthy', as it were. Lradrama 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I mean that far more than I can say merely by writing it. I apologize for being so dramatic, but all those "you have new messages" banners on huggle and Firefox were breaking my concentration, and, apparently, eroding my sanity. I appreciate the quick action with the ban-hammers, and the offers for semi-protection, but I really don't want to do that. (see User:J.delanoy/protection, although apparently, my resiliency to persistent vandals is not as good as I thought it was when I wrote that page.) I will assure you, though, tf it ever gets bad enough to force me to do this again, my request won't be only to "clear AIV".... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have troubles with vandals targeting your TP, gimme a note on my TP and I'll see what I can do. If these are the same wethers as follow him around... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected PLAN for another two weeks, since the three IPs you mentioned have all been targeting it. Still worth keeping an eye on the talk page. Are any other articles being affected? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything to do with Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy, the user in question has some issues with any portrayal that doesn't meet his POV (that it's all evil). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We were advised to bring it here for quick notice, so User:68.31.102.232 clearly appears to be another IP sock of blocked user Hdayejr. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it contributions R. Baley (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think blocking the IP will do much good as it's already been over half an hour already and he tends to change IPs anyway (in addition to making all edits in a couple of minutes and then ducking out). I was going to batch semi-p the lot of articles for a couple of days to see if he gets bored, but am running into technical issues (someone want to do that?) Dayewalker, I recommend that you still post at the WP:suspected sock puppet page just so the info is all in one place. R. Baley (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger that, good buddy. I posted here as soon as I saw him, but he had already given up by the time the cavalry came. I'll post on the SSP board to keep things all together. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently stemming from a single user, given the similarity of his/her IP address, this user repeatedely deletes sourced and cited information in an unwarranted manner. Claiming that his/her source is "respected," while foregoing the six cited sources I offered along with completely disregarding recent consensus, the unknown and unregistered user defiantly insists that his course of action is justified. See the recent edits at

I have gone ahead and semi-protected the page and left a note on the IP's talk page. Hopefully this will bring them to the talk page for discussion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This user has been stalking me for the past day or two. Trolling with other users and Flaming please see my talk page under User talk:Lbrun12415/Archive 2 and see # 34 Response, # 35 Response, # 36 Response, # 37 Response, # 38 Don't worry too much(proof of flaming and trolling on other users), # 40 Response, # 41 Response. and last talk

Wow, be quiet. After you continuously vandalized my statement, I have decided to be done with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WHy do you have to be so rude and you call me a troll. I'm trying to help.--Lbrun12415 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) from here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.

Every time I went to two different Admin he would alos comment with negative comments, also I tried to tell him that

Gamefaqs is not a source and he started fighting with me about it. also here history of List of Wii games he has vandalized List of Wii games as you can see I told him twice "(Before you do something like that see the talk page. They NEVER said to delete half the pages information, BUT to make new pages to split it in half meain # to N and O - Z" and "(Once again please see the talk page. And also all the other list of games don't include a 4th box.)" please help me. --Lbrun12415

04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since he's done anything particularly related to you, why don't you let it go? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.40.131 has been doing nothing since March but adding an unreliable source at Sportsbook.com. I blocked for 31 hours after more incivility and edit warring but after this nice little edit to my user page (which I would ask someone to delete from the edit history once this is over), I would suggest calling this a static IP address deserving a longer block. To reduce the abuse claim that will follow, could someone else do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone do a checkuser to see if this is related to User:Fadeintoyou? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I need some eyes over at

Request for semi-protect filed here. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: All of the accounts engaging in edit wars on this and several related pages appear to be connected to User:Memills. Request for checkuser in progress. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memills. --Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to have an admin mark this as "resolved" if they will simply ask User:Memills on his talk page to limit himself to one account and to edit while logged in. The problem tends to come up when he reverts multiple editors while logged in as different IP's, some of which appear to be proxies. Limiting himself to one account and staying logged in will help clear up some of the confusion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology filed. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The subj article claims to be a fraud that's existed for a year, and the edit history would seem to support that. I tagged it nonsense, but am now wondering if there's any other response appropriate for this

It doesn't meet the criteria for

articles for deletion. Kevin (talk

) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated it to G3, thanks, but I don't understand the AFD reference--if the author of a stub comes back later and says "ha ha, Wikipedia's unreliable because this was nonsense" shouldn't that be speedied? Apologies if I'm being dense, and feel free to delete this thread and follow up on my talk page if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article gone now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I understand PetraSchelm's attempts to galvanise the project actively against child-abuse, and the emotional strain that such a self-imposed task must bring about, I cannot support her recent removal of reliable sources, even when pub info was in the source or readily available from scientific databases. The justification for this string of edits appears to have been the discovery of a Pedophile-supported website that hosts copies of scientific papers. She claims that this website is not a reliable source, and in removing the entire source, fails to understand that in most cases their online copy is simply a backup to already reproduced or easily retrievable pub info that would suffice on its own. This has lead to the loss of a number of independent and well-researched sources, none of which I see as supporting the ethos of the website in question.

It would be better - instead of blanking the source without warning, to simply remove the link from the reference, if one objects to it. I do not want to incite any kind of kneejerk reaction against this person, but she does need putting right in this instance.

See E.g.. The entire pub info is reproduced. Even though the paper itself (available in databases) supports the text, she removes the whole lot because someone has backed it up with a questionable link. forestPIG 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ipce--International Pedophile Child Emancipation--is not a reliable source. It's a website hosted with no known author, and we have no way of knowing if anything hosted by ipce is complete/unaltered etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of editors deleting ipce, not merely Petra. I think John Nevard's user page provides the clue as to why now, this site is best described as fringe and IMHO admins would do well not to get involved in this content dispute about fringe RS acceptability in the pedophile articles. Thanks,

SqueakBox

20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding low-quality websites reproducing material that has appeared elsewhere as a cite-able publication. Perhaps IPCE material can be treated the same way: If it reprints something from the American Journal of Pediatrics or even from a completed Ph.D. dissertation, let it stand, if it's spouting nonsense that would never be printed by a reliable publication, then don't. Treat each citation on its own merits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How to handle advocacy organizations hosting content?

This begs a larger question: What to do when editors use a secondary source which cherry-picks primary sources which support its point of view, particularly when the primary source is a paid-subscription, print-only, or otherwise not-available-to-everyone source. In other words, if I source "Hitler allowed 3 million Jews to live" from a Neo-Nazi web site's reprint of a peer-reviewed print-only scientific journal from 1953, should I leave the source and the link, leave only a reference to the hard-to-find printed paper, or eliminate the source altogether and tag the text as {{

fact

}}, leaving it up to the next editor to delete it entirely? As much as I don't want to send traffic to neo-Nazi sites, having an online copy is better than having only a paper reference.

Now, if the paper in question was never published in a cite-able publication, e.g. it was only published in some Neo-Nazi newsletter from 1953, then by all means can it. The same goes for pedophile manifestos that were never published in a quality publication. About the only claim those sources are useful for are passages like "Most people consider Neo-Nazism to be an offront to society[insert cites here] but at least one group from 1953 disagrees[insert garbage newsletter citation here, or better yet, a non-Nazi 3rd party quoting from said garbage newsletter]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For that situation we have {{

cherrypicked}}. --Relata refero (disp.

) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I invoke

Godwin's Law. Please continue without further Nazi/Hitler comparisons. Thank you. CharonX/talk

22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read

Godwin's Law; it is a mere statement of fact that compels nothing. And as the article says, "The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate"; given that the concrete examples behind this are to pedophile sights, referring to neo-Nazis might actually less hyperbolic than the original.--Prosfilaes (talk

) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not my concern. Even though the articles are in fact exact copies of independent work, I am concerned by the fact that you extend this observation to delete the reliable book or journal refs that form the core of these sources. This is not acceptable behaviour, and I suggest that you read up on our policies if you wish to continue in this way. forestPIG 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Davidwr brings up very good points. And I did indeed notice that there were 138 links to ipce by reading John Nevard's userpage. I think ipce should be on a blacklist, to keep these links from creeping back in (and to get rid of the 100+ that are linked from talkpages). We're not a linkfarm to boost ipce's Google stats, and there's never any reason to cite it; anything published elsewhere can be cited from elsewhere. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, could you please pay a bit closer attention to the arguments of myself and David above. I am not asking you to leave links to the offensive site. I am asking you to cease in blanking the whole independent pub info because a copy is hosted on an offensive site. And where the pub info is not reproduced, yet readily available, you should be prepared to put in that little extra bit of work to improve the source. forestPIG 20:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think wikilawyering will get you very far, ForestPig, whose admin sock are you anyway (email me privately if you like). Thanks,

SqueakBox

20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable sources, then there is no need to link to an iffy website that hosts them. There should be original links available. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or a book/journal ref. This is what PetraSchelm has actually been deleting. forestPIG 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

keeping the original reference to the book/journal is no sin. Sure it makes it more difficult to a) check the source yourself for more research, or b) figure out if it is used appropriately, but I'd rather not link to polemic sites (of any stripe) if we can avoid it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The letters IPCE stand for "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation" - it is the successor organization to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Among the people who founded both organizations is Tom O'Carroll, convicted in the UK of a couple pedophilia-related offenses and child pornography.

Nothing on the IPCE website can be considered a trustworthy source, since its purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight, there is no way to know if anything posted their is true or not.

If someone can find them, the sources quoted on IPCE might be reliable as originally published. They would need to be located and vetted on their own merits, and unless someone has done that, they can't be used either. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't discount a source just because its purpose is activism. Political web sites, lobbying web sites, womens- and childrens-issues-advocacy web sites, and many others are inherently activist, but I would not summarily discount the material on them just because they are activist and POV-pushing web sites. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between activism and fringe. Thanks,

SqueakBox

21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the standard of extra scrutiny is a site whose "purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight" that would apply to a lot of non-fringe sources. In fact, most activist web sites run by small- and medium-sized organizations would fail this test because we can't know if they have an independent fact-checker. We can probably trust big-and-popular sites because if they screw up it will be in tomorrow's newspapers. If on the other hand the standard of extra scrutiny is "fringe sites" then we get into wikidebates over where the exact border between "fringe", "nearly fringe," "2 steps away from fringe," and "not fringe" are, and that's a debate that will just waste everyone's time.

A reasonable measure is "Does this site claim to have fact-checking and is this claim credible? If not, how likely is it their reputation will be hurt if they screw up and misprint something, and do they even care about their reputation?" The more fringe a site is, the less of a reputation they have to be damaged, and therefore the less external motivation they have to get it right and the greater scrutiny they deserve. It's a sliding scale that is best decided by the editors of the individual articles where the citation is made, not on a Wiki-wide basis. I suspect articles on controversial issues tend to have a lot of watchlist-ers, so such a discussion won't want for lack of participation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about ipce is that it's run/maintained by only one person, according to ipce, who has not disclosed his identity. So it's officially maintained by Anonymous, and has all the credibility of Anonymous, who is in no way accountable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, not just fringe, but extreme fringe. The difference is the

reliability of the particular activists; what are their qualifications, are they experts, are they otherwise notable, are they published elsewhere, what is the reputation of their organization, etc... ? In the case of IPCE, the founders include convicted criminals, some of whom have advocated sex with children and distributed child pornography. So, no, don't discount them just because they're activists. Discount them because they are not reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This can be dangerous: There are unreliable activists who are not on the fringe. As a hypothetical, if I were a woman's rights activist from 1972 advocating for abortion rights, but I routinely got sloppy when copying academic work into my newsletter, then I'm unreliable. On the other hand, if I'm a Neo-Nazi and I am meticulously accurate in reproducing others' academic works, then I'm reliable even though I'm extreme fringe. I'd be more likely to trust the reprinted works of the latter than the former. When it comes to original material of course, the Neo-Nazi's garbage-spew would go straight to the trash-can where it belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in as a neutral party. This seems to be a case where the correct procedure is to change the citations to reference the original scientific research papers directly. We ARE allowed to reference offline sources as long as they can be accessed somehow. The correct procedure is to change all the citations thus. Squeakbox, I do not see any 'wikilawyering' in ForestPig's contributions and if you have credible evidence he is an alternate admin account attempting to avoid scrutiny then I suggest you bring this up at the appropiate channel rather than making a wild accusation -

• ForestPig states on his userpage that he operates "a moderately active admin account" and that this is his alternate account for "controversial articles." -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we must

verify that the papers are actually genuine and not forgeries hosted by the questionable site to further it's agenda that goes without saying. Exxolon (talk

) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should hold these sites to the same verification standards as we do other non-reliable sites. For example, if DanRatherFanclub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Dan Rather's early newspaper articles, and someone cites it, it deserves the same scrutiny as if www.AdolfHitlerFanClub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Hitler's lesser-known works and someone cites it. No more, no less. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:YOUSOUNDLIKEAGOODGUY are not good reasons to hold someone to a higher standard or let someone off with a free pass. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, the original-source citations should stay even if they are not in an easily-accessible form. There is a difference of opinion over whether online copies which are on questionable sites should be allowed to remain. On one hand, an online copy makes it easy to check the reference to make sure it actually backs up the claim. On the other hand, it can allow Wikipedia to turn into a link-farm to www.adolfhitleristhecoolest.com. I recommend allowing these types of links but only as a last resort, if there is not another free-and-easily-accessible copy. One solution is to track down the original source, contact the publisher, and 1) ask permission to host it on your personal site or on Wikimedia Commons and link from there, and 2) alert him to the fact that the material is being used on the questionable site. Typically the publisher will either say "okay" or he will send a DMCA request to the questionable site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This, and Jack-A-Roe sound the most sensible opinions so far. I am able to verify many sources, as I have access to some databases. I am sure that many other users do too. forestPIG 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, if a source like www.AdolfHitlerFanClub is KNOWN to frequently mis-copy cite-able material or edit them in a slanted way and misrepresent them as an unedited version, then it's grounds to blacklist that particular site as a source for Wikipedia article references. However, that should be taken up on a site-by-site basis. If anyone is making such a claim about IPCE, then please open a separate discussion, call it "Move to blacklist IPCE as a fraudulent source" or something like that. Have your evidence ready before you start, and make sure the fraud is wholesale or at least significant enough to be a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but as you wrote, let's keep that question out of this thread. Whether or not IPCE is blackllisted, it still can't be used as a

WP:V source. The only thing IPCE can be used to support is statements about its own opinions, not any facts or sources that require independent verification. This needs to be clearly decided in this thread so it doesn't come up again, because the purpose of that website is pedophile activism - its use in footnotes on Wikipedia undermines that dependable accuracy of our articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can't be used as a

WP:V source" is the crux of the discussion, and there isn't a consensus yet. Let me explain. If IPCE reproduced an article from George W. Bush's high school newspaper about him, and that article wasn't found anywhere else on the Internet, I would have no problem including a link to it if I needed to. However, I would include the paper-citation information as well and would probably ask someone who had access to check his school newspaper's printed archives to verify the copy was accurate, just as I would if the same newspaper article showed up at www.DubyaIsTheCoolest.blogger.com. Some editors in this discussion disagree with me: They say I should limit myself to just the paper citation and not include the hyperlink. That is the question that is still on the table. I suspect we will not resolve it globally, and frankly, I think it should not be resolved globally but rather by the editors of George W. Bush or whatever article it is we are talking about. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, IPCE may be a good starting point for some research in this area (this does not mean that I endorse their opinions, but just their rather thorough coverage of the topics). They do appear to reproduce accurate copies of scientific and sociological works, and one imagines that this is probably important for a group who have all the dignity of campaigning pedophiles. If people find the EL offensive, I am not opposed to having it removed. Editors should always cite the journal/book/publisher anyway. forestPIG 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the question that's being missed here - has anyone looked at the print source to verify that the website is reproducing it faithfully? If not, since the website is of unknown quality, it shouldn't be used as a reference yet. No harm in putting that statement it references back once someone has been able to verify that the actual source supports it. Shell ^babelfish 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair, but if and only if the same standards are applied to all web sites of similar quality. I would put almost all blogs in that category. If www.ilovemykittycat.blogging.com had an excert from "How To Raise Cats, by Ima Catlover, (c)1990" that would be just as untrusted. Google Book Search is good but only if the book in question is in their database and the page in question is publicly available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No text at all was removed--fact tags were placed after the ipce links were removed. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. This should apply to at least 3 "believe the children" sites frequently quoted in

satanic ritual abuse- and false memory-related articles. The bias of the site-owner is clear, and the question of whether quoted articles are edited is open. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sites? I don't edit any of those articles, but I'll take a look. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The question that needs to be asked is, "does the IPCE website have

a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" If so, then it's a reliable source; if not, not. I'm not averse to the idea of providing "convenience links" to third-party online copies of published documents which the publisher has not made available online (assuming there are no copyright concerns) but I'm convinced that we should not approve the practice in principle, only on a case-by-case basis, and taking particular care when the third-party is strongly partisan or advocating for a minority, fringe or extreme point of view. In any case, the citation should always be made to the original publisher, not to any mirror site. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that removing the whole reference because of a link cannot be justified because someone may not have looked at a reiable copy. How do we know that the referee has not looked at a reliable copy, and is not just giving the online copy for informational purposes? Anyways, if PetraSchelm does not have the original source, a civil way of settling the issue would be to contact another editor, not to go removing sources, because her knowledge or access to databases is lacking in that area. forestPIG 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor who wants to include information, and always has been. (And that would be completely bizarre to expect anyone to go through the entire revision history of an article to determine which particular editor added something, and notify them personally--the 30 links I removed were not added recently; who knows how long they have been there.) But, the question of ipce is for 1) the RS noticeboard 2) the talkpages of articles. The consensus already long established at articles is that ipce is not RS, but exceptions have been allowed for use of ipce as a fringe source in fringe articles such as the

pro-pedophile activism article--although there was some discussion if it qualified as an exception because there is no known authorship, and that is one criteria of an acceptable fringe source. -PetraSchelm (talk

) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand from today's and yesterday's discussion here, IPCE has two types of materials: Original material and copied material. I understand there is no known author, which typically makes the original material not a reliable source. As far as copied material, I assume that breaks down into 2 categories: Material which has easily-accessible copies elsewhere and material which has copies elsewhere that are not easily accessible. Links to the former can be simply replaced by links to more-mainstream locations. Furthermore, links to the former can be used to determine if IPCE is making faithful copies or not. If it is making faithful copies to these, then it's reasonable to assume the copies to the less-accessible materials are also faithful copies. If that is the case, then I see no problem using them as a link in Wikipedia. This concept can be generalized to any source which is not considered reliable but which republishes, or claims to republish, material from reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a much higher standard than has been used for ipce links, which have mostly been indiscriminately spammed in without regard for accuracy or info, or whether there is another copy on a non-polemic non-fringe site. Here [5], for example, ForestPig complained to someone else, who replied that she couldn't find the source in the LC (and replaced it with an alternate source which meets WP:V). Ipce is questionable enough as a source that anyone who wants to use it should make a strong case in every instance for why ipce and nothing else is a good link, IMO -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the standard davdwr proposes above a very good one for sites such as this. It represents the common sense consensus we try for, and I suggest he propose it explicitly as an addition to our V policy or whatever is the appropriate guideline in our morass of rules. Petra is right that we should upgrade the articles for this, but it will take a while, for it requires a serious effort at finding a better source before the links to them are removed. We shouldnt remove what links we have while we work on improving them. DGG (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a

WP:V to change that section. Please participate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail

) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, IPCE is not the source at all; the papers and articles themselves are. That IPCE is used as a

convenience link is not a problem, as long as the original article is fully cited. Those wanting the original rather than IPCE's copy are free to pay the requisite journal for a reprint. We've been doing exactly this with convenience links for quite some time. It's easier to delete than to add; I ask that we not take the easy way. Wishful thinking: It would be nice if the articles were available for free from an organization that didn't advocate for any side of this or any other issue. However, it's usually only the partisans who care enough to host materials such as these. --SSBohio

08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the consensus at talk:Verifiability. Also, you should talk to Legitimus, who has now verified that ipce changes documents (deletes graphs/charts/conclusions...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'tis true 'tis pity. I have access to some original print copies of some studies hosted by IPCE, and have found that on occasion, IPCE may have altered a document's content, left out critical parts like statistical graphs, or is hosting a commentary rather than the true study. If you must have details, I'm afraid you'll need to wait for a bit. I do not want to access IPCE from my location.Legitimus (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As the title states, I request that the following range blocks be issued. The following IP ranges have been found by finding sockpuppets and taggin accordingly:

• 24.172.0.0 - 24.172.255.255
• 65.28.0.0 - 65.31.255.255
• 66.240.192.0 - 66.240.255.255
• 68.24.0.0 - 68.31.255.255
• 69.4.224.0 - 69.4.239.255
• 69.61.231.0 - 69.61.231.255
• 69.89.96.0 - 69.89.127.255
• 70.0.0.0 - 70.14.255.255
• 70.144.0.0 - 70.159.255.255
• 70.192.0.0 - 70.223.255.255
• 71.64.0.0 - 71.79.255.255
• 72.56.0.0 - 72.63.255.255
• 75.176.0.0 - 75.191.255.255
• 75.192.0.0 - 75.255.255.255
• 96.12.0.0 - 96.15.255.255
• 99.200.0.0 - 99.207.255.255
• 140.106.0.0 - 140.106.255.255
• 207.10.0.0 - 207.10.255.255
• 207.10.224.0 - 207.10.239.255

Here is the sock case for the user, well, the most recent sock case. Thankyou for your time.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Those ranges are way way too extensive. By my count, you're asking for a block on at least 10 million IPs.

WP:RBI. The Evil Spartan (talk

) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going off of the WHOIS reports for the IP net ranges. I shall go directly from the list now.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New list:

• 65.31.*.*
• 68.24-31.*.*
• 69.4-89.*.*
• 70.9.59-237.*
• 70.210-212.32-117.*
• 72.59-60.*.*
• 75.185.202.*
• 75.218.*.*
• 99.201-205.*.*

— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 07:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is still too much. For one thing, admins can't block anything bigger than a /16 block (like 65.31.*.*) — 68.24-31.*.* is a /13 block, 99.201-205.*.* is a /16, a /15 and a /14 block, and so on. Blocking those ranges would be using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut — the risk of collateral damage is far too high. (See
  talk
  ) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur against the blanket raneblocks as the collateral damage is way too high, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, however, it is worth pointing out that Hdayejr is really persistent so rapid mole-whacking is the order of the day. Ideally there would be a AIV-like noticeboard for "simple socking", i.e. a case where a well-known sockmaster has re-emerged with an obvious repeat of their old MO. I guess right here (ANI) is the place, but it's not always simple to get admin attention on this.

For persistent (and apparently unemployed) sockmasters like Hdayejr, it's a fine line between letting them get away with it and giving them

trophy pages. I agree the only solution is whack-a-mole, but I'd love to hear any suggestions on how to more effeciently report moles for whacking. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway

.

Range block for a troll?

Resolved

See

• Blocked 77.78.196.0/22 anon only and ACB for 3 months. There doesn't seem to be anyone else on this range at this time. Thatcher 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User

My question is how has this person been allowed to edit for so long? I have never seen so many block notices/warnings on anyones talkpage, so I am proposing an immediate indefinite block. Chafford (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the user's contributions and long block and warning history, I've blocked them indefinitely; simply ignored too many chances to reform their behavior. A fuller rationale is on their talk page. --

barneca (talk

) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, copied (with editorial changes) from User talk:Foetusized:I've blocked this user indefinitely, not for this latest edit war, but for the consistent history of doing nothing but revert with little/no explanation. I have no position on the actual subject of your disagrement, so if someone else comes along and thinks they liked his version better, this isn't a free pass to revert them with no discussion; please try to start a discussion with any new editor if they show up preferring his version, and assume it isn't the same user unless they start reverting with no discussion too.

So hopefully that should improve the editing environment at the article. --

barneca (talk

) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps creating pages called lard land and typing lard into articles plus other varients such as ard. This vandal surfaced earlier today and has just resurfaced just now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheelclerk4567 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — Wheelclerk4567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

AIV is

thataway ->. shoy

12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes here?

Resolved

No admin action required - debate is continuing on the talk page Kevin (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue of blatant copyvio at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography‎. I cleaned up a bit of this but the editor that added the copyvio material virtually via copy/pasting sections from the source in question does not seem to understand how this was incorrect. Here is a good example of what I am referring to. (Please also see the user's subsequent response - [6]) - I would appreciate an admin looking into this please and advising Hypatea (talk · contribs). Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it, but I might just go ahead and nuke it since the old versions were clear copyright violations, and given that we have a L. Ron Hubbard article anyways. seicer | talk | contribs 16:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be for the best. I've been comparing-and-contrasting, and the last version before Cirt started deleting was full of copyvios - a few words were changed here and there, but it's definitely been copied wholesale. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and redirected to

LRH}}, which I have removed, so the redirect can be deleted once the incoming links dwindle. - auburnpilot talk

16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this and addressing it. A note to Hypatea (talk · contribs) might also be appropriate, to explain things - might be best coming from someone other than myself. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite being warned about this,[10] he continues to do so.[11] Could another admin have a look to see if action is necessary? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This diff shows some pretty disturbing

WP:OWN

issues in addition to the Twinkle abuse. Also, I gave him a notice about signing his posts, since I noticed he was failing to do so on your Talk page.

I don't know that there is a language barrier in place or what, but the user has been here at least since January and still is failing to grasp some basic policies. It's dangerous to have a user like that with a rollback button. I think deactivating Twinkle and protecting his monobook.js, with restoration of Twinkle privileges being contingent on getting a mentor, would not be out of line. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Oh hell, just block him if he continues to edit war or make wrongful accusations of vandalism or any other bad edits. No need to muck around with his user-space. Besides if you protect his monobook he

could just switch to a different skin. — CharlotteWebb

13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if "the community" deactivates Twinkle while discussing their edits this would be a clear indication - similar to at level 4 warning - that there are serious concerns about their method of contributing? The user switching Twinkle to another skin without responding could then be taken as a further violation which would then result in a block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be blocked for misusing Twinkle? Don't think I've seen that before.

Hrm, shouldn't the first step have been deactivating Twinkle? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The user was blocked for rolling back good faith edits and calling it vandalism, as well as for

WP:CIV

issues, not just for abusing Twinkle.

That said, I think the block was way premature, and that's why I advocated decativating Twinkle as a first step to get the users attention. I would also point out that the user was not active at the time of the block, which makes the value of a 24 hour block highly questionable.

I wasn't going to challenge an action that two admins had consensus on (CharlotteWeb and Gwen Gale), but I never felt good about this resolution. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Good Comment Jay. FYI, I don't think you need that disclaimer on every post. There are many of us non-admins here, its perfectly allowable. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :) Maybe I'll stop using it as often, perhaps only when I initially respond to a thread. Another good faith editor got kinda frustrated after I had been working for about 24 hrs on getting through to a disruptive user and decided that it needed admin attention after all. His point was, "If it didn't need admin attention, I wouldn't have brought it to the admin noticeboard," and thought that was a valid complaint so I've been trying to practice full disclosure. But you're right, I probably don't need it on every single post :) Thanks --Jaysweet (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be surprised by the percentage of "incidents" on this page which do not require an admin's attention (there are others which do not require anyone's attention but that's another issue). — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, and that's why I hang out here ;) I estimate at least 50% of the reports don't need admin attention. But I started doing the disclaimer anyway, because I had a good faith editor thinking I was an admin for >24 hours, and that didn't feel honest to me. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Twinkle" isn't the problem. Reverting in one click isn't the problem. The problem is edit-warring, failure to explain reverts, and accusing others of vandalism. This is an attitude problem and not anything inherent or specific to "Twinkle" or any other reverting tool. — CharlotteWebb 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying necessarily that the block was unwarranted, I wasn't sure of the severity of the other problems and it occurred to me that if the Twinkle misuse was the major one a block was sort of a novel approach. Its totally possible that the other disruptive behavior (edit warring) noted in the block was enough to merit it.
  ^T * ^ER
  20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you have done if all other factors were equal but no extra features such as "Twinkle" had been used? You can't take away the "

(undo)" button, or the ability to select and manually repost the text of an old version, so at some point you would still have to consider (not-so-)novel approaches. — CharlotteWebb

20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think number57 is right that the user isn't really editing collaboratively, although it appears there is a language barrier issue impacting the problem. Still, I only saw two edits identified as twinkle using the edit summary. I think a barrage of folks letting him know that his editing style is inappropriate (either on his talkpage, or directing him here) might've made a difference prior to a block. He's clearly not very well versed in Wikipedia, but that can be changed with some education. At the least, now that he is blocked, it'd be appropriate for Gwen to advise him more specifically on what he did wrong and how he should edit once he is unblocked.

^T * ^ER

20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As for Twinkle abuse,

ownership, edit warring and Twinkle mis-use worries all together, with an editor who was showing no hint of slowing down. This said, I've been watching his talk page and was ready to unblock as soon as I could get a promise he would stop edit warring and would not use Twinkle's rollback for anything but vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk

) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I still have doubts about the efficacy of a short (24hr) block on a user that was not active, if you are watching the User Talk page then I retract my earlier "unhappiness" about the resolution of this issue. Hopefully they'll reform. Cheers! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor had made 70 edits today in a 6 hour period. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those edits were productive (or at least, most of them weren't rolled back.. I don't know enough about Tunisian footballers to know for sure if they were productive!) and more importantly, he had not edited for ~3.5 hours at the time of the block.

<shrug> I don't think the block was really out of process or anything (otherwise I would have made a stink about it at the time), but I am not convinced it was the best way of dealing with the user. But, that's just a matter of opinion, and seeing as how you have the mop and I don't ;) I'll defer to yours (while retaining my own). Cheers! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told you got my attention with your first post to this thread when you wrote It's dangerous to have a user like that with a rollback button. After reading the comments here I counted three rollbacks of good faith edits, saw the edit warring and saw no hint the user was heeding any of the pleas or warnings on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked by Moreschi (thank you kindly)

This diff is characteristic of Hdayejr socks. I will warn and such, but I'd rather have this nipped in the bud than wait for it to escalate to AIV, thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I find a sock puppet of someone can I call them "unemployed loser" also?[12] Or is this a privilege on Wikipedia for the few? Seriously, why antagonize people? It's not necessary. --Blechnic (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS no answer is required.

You know, it's easy to turn the other cheek after the first fifty or so socks and personal attacks. After that, people tend to get a mite trigger happy and sick of this multiply-banned user coming in every day and repeating the process. Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Well, I can't say I don't understand his frustration with rampant socks who waste our time. I am a bit confused that you're working so hard to defend such socks. Why are you defending the sock puppeteer? ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So you've just offered up an excuse for acting just like him? I suggest he didn't give any appearance of deserving the energy expenditure on your part. --Blechnic (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)

Fair 'nuff, I'll strike the comment. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that due to

WP:DENY, we all just end the conversation. This user isn't worth the effort. We can all agree that sockpuppeting, vandalism, and personal attacks are bad. We're all on the same team here, so let's just let it go. Dayewalker (talk

) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See the date. Same thing elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing we got a free photo of him whilst he was alive. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note I would notify his office that a specific threat has been made, but I'm afraid I'll sound like a complete dingbat if the diffs are oversighted. — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is from Washington DC if anyone wants to deal with it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a phone call. This needs to be dealth with, just in case. – ClockworkSoul 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report with the Detroit Police Dept. (they were very nice). Can't be too careful about this kind of thing. – ClockworkSoul 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the supervisor of the sergeant with whom I reported the incident called me back to thank me (and us), and to let me know that this is being pursued. Obviously, it's probably just a really silly prank, but I'm willing to bet that the prankster will probably be encouraged to consider the consequences of his actions in the future. – ClockworkSoul 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Better hope he doesn't get killed -- standard procedure by the Detroit Police homicide department is to start the investigation by arresting the victim, the reporter, and any potential witnesses. --Carnildo (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The homicide department arrests the victim? I imagine that can get messy. – ClockworkSoul 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, also. --Selket ^Talk 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to 'crats: please don't oversight those diffs. – ClockworkSoul 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they warrant oversight, and I thought nothing of it til I looked at the date O.O <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was scheduled for a meeting tomorrow, the 4th. I guess I missed it. I wonder how it went? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Overseers do that. Acalamari

22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Of course. Very silly of me. It's unlikely to be oversighted of course, but I just wanted to be sure that they remain for the authorities to see. I had to talk the very nice sergeant through the process of navigating through the wiki so that she could see the diffs, and I would hate for them to be unable to find them if they needed them again. – ClockworkSoul 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who has ever tried to help somebody find a diff or any other url over the phone will agree with me on this: e-mail works better. Recommend using a throwaway account, a pseudonym, and an IP address not traceable to you. — CharlotteWebb 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, the article needs some attention with respect to BLP in respect to other people named in it, and possibly to undue weight. We do not normally describe events like this in such great detail. DGG (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to make this suggestion, it seemed to fit best here.

It's way PoV but the contribution history is very limited. Please keep trying the talk pages for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, though no luck as yet. Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User M-72 has been warned on 4 separate occasions from 3 separate editors about personal attacks in a relatively short time. Here are the diffs of the warnings: 1, 2, 3, and 4. #3 was considered a "last warning". Many editors have attempted to educate the editor in question of the policy, but I think, considering the amount and time frame, it's time to take further action here. When confronting the editor with the behavior, we usually got response like this, this, and this.

On top of the personal attacks, the editor has been warned several times about vandalism in general such as this. It is clear to me that without actions from an admin, this type of behavior will continue. Is anyone able to offer help on this issue? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I've placed this report in the wrong notice board, please forgive me and help point me in the right direction to report this properly. Thanks for the help. Roguegeek (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – misunderstanding Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TerriersFan (

TerriersFan explained this to GreenJoe. Note GJ has also brought this to DRV. I think this is resolved. It's not blockable at any level. Suggest someone else mark resolved as GJ and I have a 'history' _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's resolved. I apologized for the misunderstanding. GreenJoe 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:6M2's user page is being used by the user and friends as a social networking site of sorts. Clearly something should be done as this is against policy, but I'm not entirely sure what. Does warning or blocking all involved work for everyone? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, reported at

WP:MFD. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk

) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you told the user that this is not accepted? Perhaps they are not aware of this policy. Cheers!

talk

) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have not. Will do. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

User:70.9.243.200 is another sock of User:Hdayejr, nothing but vandalism and personal attacks including this beauty [13] right here on the WP:ANI page. Thanks in advance again. Dayewalker (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to R. Baley for the block, however, hes back at User:68.29.201.137. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. R. Baley shot him down again. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert moved a bunch of bio articles about various tennis players from titles with diacritics to titles without. He cites some sort of consensus which I assume refers to this localized discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Naming_of_tennis_biographies. Diacritics or no diacritics is a Wikipedia-wide issue and individual projects should not carve exceptions for itself. Thus I bring it to the wider audience for comments. Renata (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for that. This page is here to report incidents that require the intervention of an administrator using tools that are only available to administrators. Comment withdrawn. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See this, this, and the items linked therein. Tennis expert (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The moves should be reversed - this seems to be one side of a very lengthy argument (several months) attempting to get its way by blunt force, and the move is neither required nor suggested by policy or style guides. Orderinchaos 08:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help here - a massive number of articles have been moved per this supposed "consensus" - 68 in a very short period of time. Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been working in concert with Redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this one - the latter moved 20 on 20th May, some of those have already been moved back. Orderinchaos 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working in "concert" with anyone, i.e., there is no conspiracy. Redux began the discussion. Several editors, including myself, agreed with his proposal. He closed the discussion and said the renaming and edits should be implemented. And various people have followed through. It's as simple as that. Tennis expert (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my previous belief that you were aware of previous discussions on this matter. It still shouldn't have been done, but I was incorrect to jump to a conclusion on that. Orderinchaos 09:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most have been moved back now. All biographies are usually part of more than one WikiProject so a single project should not really even discuss about doing something this controversial to a large number of articles. Prolog (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When doing things that might appear suspicious or vandalism to other users, always take care to link on the edit summary to the discussion where the changes obtained consensus. It avoids lots of problems --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As Tennis Expert also did: here On the other hand some editor "Pokrajac" just reverted by either no edit summary or "Per all Serbian names". And that editor keeps disrupting the article against consensus for that particular article. So who is to be banned? I loose more and more faith in this whole project. Where is a clear rule, a thrustworthy editor (in the non-wiki sense of the word) when you need one? --HJensen, talk 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think we should change to Djokovic, than we must change all other Serbian, Croatian, Bosnik, and Polish names. Open new voting for all non-English names if you want to make something. Whitout that this is only double standard. --Pockey (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should have made these arguments earlier. You cannot go against a consensus by your unilateral disrupive edits.--HJensen, talk 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. This debate has been raging for eight months in different locations, and to claim one very limited consensus on one WikiProject (which represented a determined minority in nearly all of the other discussions) and ignoring all previous activity on the subject (which I might note ended up on the arbitration pages on at least two occasions but was never certified) is the end of the matter is not a way to facilitate cooperation. Consensus,

civility and a few other things. Orderinchaos

15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So I can just change names to English spelling over and over just writing "Because I say it is correct" in the edit summary? I am genuinly trying to find out how this disorganized anarchy works. Sometimes when I think I understand it, new people come up with new interpretations telling me that I got it wrong. So my question is not sarcastic. Can I do it? And do you appreciate Pokrajac´s edits to the Djokovic article? --HJensen, talk 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those poor souls who are still watching, six of them are at

WP:RM. Orderinchaos

15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those poor folks who watch over

acetylsalicylic acid....) JPG-GR (talk

) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, my eyes are not playing tricks on me and im not on drugs either. The obama page was just covered with a HUGE slogan covering his name. The slogan read ( and i squirm as I write this) NIGGER!!!!!!!!. I checked the edit history and no one had edited the article, it was there for about a minute and then disappeared. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was in a template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Barack Obama}} which is now protected. It happens sometimes... not much we can do except protect all templates. --Rividian (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, i was concerned about my health lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually protected, oops. But the vandalism was removed. --Rividian (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sprotected. --Rory096 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears on Michelle Obama's page as well. Steve Richter (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same template. --Rory096 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecx4) It was in a template (this one to be specific). It's now removed, and the vandal was blocked. If it happens again, any admins should feel free to block on sight. --Rory096 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this template not full protected? The visibility on Barack Obama's article alone is around 800,000-2.6 million pageviews a month. Sometimes it gets over 100,000 hits in a single day. Why isn't this full protected for safety's sake.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it really ought to be, same with George Bush's template. It's not exactly a

水女珊瑚15

04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you define a "high-risk template". I would assume that all high-profile BLP templates need to be at least semi-protected if not fully-protected all the time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, can

talk

) 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to Gary :) but BLP issues are much more of a concern. I've just updated the guideline here. Please feel free to comment at the talk page there. Answers to your concerns are already mentioned in the guideline. I mean there's still, of course, a way for you to edit it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, GK, but a user only has to have an account for four days to be autoconfirmed. It is still highly-vulnerable to both vandalism and BLP concerns. --

水女珊瑚15

23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:'( The number of templates that a regular user can't edit increases again by one...

talk

) 06:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)