Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive677

For ice hockey players (as is the situation in this ANI) sources are easy to find. Virtually every professional player will be listed on the following three well-used and reliable hockey stat sites. For example, listing for

• Tomas Nadasdi career statistics at EliteProspects.com
• Tomas Nadasdi profile at Eurohockey.com
• Tomas Nadasdi career statistics at The Internet Hockey Database

The first two are European sites, the third is American. None of these listings use diacritics for that player. But evenso, Darwinek still “corrected” that player's name to Tomáš Nádašdi. Such a move is not justified by the sources, and that is just one example of what has been repeated in hundreds of BLP article moves. Dolovis (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, if the moves are to names which don't appear in sources, that would be a Very Bad Thing. However, I can't help but notice that there are other sources using "Tomáš Nádašdi" which you did not mention, in which case I would consider any breach of naming policy (ie. that names should be chosen from a certain subset of sources) to be rather less serious than the problem of mass moves without consensus. bobrayner (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The single link to the one non-English site that uses modified letters[6] was placed by Darwinek only after I insisted that he support his moves with English-language reliable sources. His earlier moves were unsourced. Apparently Darwinek was not able to find an English-language source using diacritics for that player, but that did not stop him from making the move. The point I was trying to make by using the above example is that English-language spelling is the generally used form for all of the player's names and that my assertion is supported by reliable English-language sources (for which I listed three sources which will universally cover all such articles). Established policy says that English-language sources are preferred over foreign-language sources. And in the situation of these moves, the generally used form of the names is written without diacritics. The moves are not proper. And done in-mass, without a consensus, and over the objection of another user, and even while this ANI going on, is unjustifiable. Dolovis (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I got into a minor disagreement about this a while back at
  Talk:Elian_Gonzalez_affair#Name_of_article
  . My view is still basically what I said there: do what the most careful and high-quality English-language sources do. Kurt Gödel would look completely wrong without the diaresis, but Karl Friedrich Gauß can be written Gauss with no problems. In general, go with the practices of academic sources over those of newspapers, as they tend to practice more care and precision, partly as a matter of not being on such tight deadlines and partly because they are in the business of being fussy about accuracy (like we should be). In uncertain cases, use the diacritics.
• That said, don't do mass moves or mass anything without consensus. That is disruptive and should result in blocks if not stopped once people start objecting.
• Also, biographical subjects about whom there is little or no English-language sourcing should probably not be article subjects in English Wikipedia. For example, if there's only Latvian-language sourcing, try writing about them in Latvian Wikipedia (lv:) instead of here. lvwiki has only 33k articles and is in much greater need of new articles than enwiki, which is frankly bloated. Remember our goal is to give every child in the world an encyclopedia in his or her own language. Some of us are stuck contributing in English because it's what we know, but those who can edit in Latvian are (IMO) would help the project much more by expanding lvwiki, than by cramming yet more obscure info into enwiki. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: while most of the info on the English language Wikipedia can be found elsewhere as well, the best added value it has is the introduction of subjects which are notable somewhere else, but which didn't have info available in English yet. The goal should be to have the same articles in all language versions of Wikipedia eventually. Utopic, obviously, but not something to be discouraged at all.
    Fram (talk
    ) 08:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I would very strongly oppose any move to restrict the creation of articles on foreign-language subjects; it's totally incompatible with
      OTHERSTUFF argument. Also, as Fram suggests, non-English subjects are is an area where wikipedia can add most value, because it presents information which the average reader would find much harder to access elsewhere. bobrayner (talk
      ) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• @FisherQueen - to be honest I think that your comment should be the opposite in reality, an admin should be held to the same standards as any other editor, and maybe even higher standards ("They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct"). What you said in fact shows preferential treatment for admins over editors in general, something which can only be a bad thing. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics don't mean anything to one who understands & reads 'only' english. Truly, they're distractions, if anything. The usage of them, seems only to satisfy nationalist pride of editors from areas that use them. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This was extremely uncivil comment, which showed clearly one thing - complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's global appeal and lack of basic human tolerance. - Darwinek (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A comment that was scratched out, btw. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek has been doing something that many dedicated wikipedians do for a long time. We may discuss if the practice was is in accord with all WP policies, or not, but the fact is that in sports biographies, that was being donne by most for a long time. Now, I think some users want to seek sanctions to Darwinek while I personally think that Darwinek being sanctioned want solve a single thing. I think this is not the best place for this discussion. We need to include in this discussion editors from biographies, linguistics and probably sports projects, at least. We should move this discussion to some of this places. FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In agreement, this ANI-report has morphed into a debate about the usage/non-usage of diacritics on English Wikipedia. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be about the mass moves; what to do about diacritics case-by-case is a side issue. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree; there are two separate issues here. One issue concerns diacritics (which I personally welcome in the name of encyclopædic accuracy, but opinions differ on this point, of course). The other issue concerns mass moves even after somebody complained - I think that's a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we got another

I've seen some of this guy's work come up at

WP:SCV and seen him defending the content as his own. How do we notify users of this problem? Do you know if the attribution issues he's created have been cleaned up? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

12:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I was thinking, since it seems to be mostly drafts that he's swiping maybe we could add a note or something to

WP:MADEDRAFT, but I don't know if it's worth it just yet, we'll see if he continues. We've had a couple users in #wikipedia-en-help complain about this too so now that we're aware it's the same guy we can inform them if any more show up to complain. I haven't looked through the contribs of all the socks but the most recent ones from MrArticleWizard have been moved back to their proper place. Clarkson, Ohio still exists with User:Wikiapelli as the creator but (the real) User:Wikipelli from whom it was copied appears to be letting this one slide. -- œ^™

13:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be very easy to correct that, simply by G6ing the earliest edits (since all content is by Wikipelli) or merging. I'll check with him about it at his usertalk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't aware that there were remedies to the draft theft. I guess I had it in my head that fighting for attribution would be contrary to

wp:own. So, not so much 'letting it slide' as assuming "them's the breaks on wikipedia"! In any event, thanks for whatever you can do on this, my first article! :) Wikipelli ^Talk

13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's done. All credit where credit is due. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Can the copyvio tools be tweaked to spot this (it is of course a copyvio)? Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

It's part of Coren's bot's work to compare articles. I don't think it compares user space, but VWbot picked up one of these at least when the userspace sandbox had been mirrored elsewhere. I'm pretty clueless about bots and tools and suchlike, so I don't know the reward/cost benefit to tweaking the bots to look at userspace as well. :) (I've mentioned this to User:VernoWhitney, who may have input.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles created as copies from userspace drafts are picked up on a fairly regular basis by CorenSearchBot (and my VWBot backup), so long as they've been around long enough to show up in Yahoo search or be mirrored somewhere. The difference between spotting this kind of cut/paste move/copy versus a regular article is that {{Userspace draft}} noindexes the page, so it doesn't usually show up elsewhere if it's properly tagged (which is why the hit that MRG just mentioned was from a proxy site and not a usual mirror). As far as I know it could be set up to run an additional internal search for every single article using the API to get around that issue, but it would take some work. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Darkstar1st (notification)has civility problems of using Talk:Libertarianism as a forum; and, in relation to "I didn't hear that" conduct in relation to constantly and periodically revisiting community consensus without presenting new evidence or arguments at Libertarianism and Talk:Libertarianism.

1. Forum: [7]
2. IDHT: [8]

The article community has attempted numerous dispute resolution techniques, including BRD, Talk: discussion, User Talk: discussion, informal mediation, formal mediation attempts, administrator assisted informal mediation, article locking, talk page locking, collapsing FORUM and IDHT sections of text on the talk page, revisiting high quality scholarly sources, and ignoring the behaviour as lying outside of consensus. The behaviour has continued; and disrupts the encyclopaedic project by disrupting the talk page and distracting from article improvement.

I would like community assistance in developing a way forward with an editor who does not adhere to argued consensus, and displays tendentious IDHT behaviour. I am at a loss for a way to avoid article disruption, and would like advice. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has a bad history of edit-warring and continues to communicate with the banned User:Karmaisking on his talk page. Instead of making a constructive contribution, he chooses to argue obscure positions, wasting the time of other editors. I would recommend a community ban. TFD (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you not consider my edition of william belsham as the man who coined the term libertarian a constructive contribution? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well if Darkstar1st, who said he was done editing the article, is back, I'll be putting

talk

) 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your sole contribution to the article William Belsham. You added that he coined the term "libertarian" and btw got the referencing wrong. TFD (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

you are also wrong, i have made several edits, here are the 2 most recent, unappropriated and advocating reduction to just state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same article? Here is the article history and you have only a single edit, Darkstar1st.

talk

) 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

yrowo i am discussing edits made to the libertarianism article. before i arrived, it was incorrectly attributed. suggesting my numerous edits are not constructive is curious given i am the editor who identified the person who coined the term. my faith is most certainly good concerning the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Other Stuff, even Other Good Stuff, may exist. Good edits you may make do not change the disruption attendant upon your use of the talk page as a forum, and your failure to abide by argued consensus on the article and in the talk page. It is impossible to weigh contributions against disruption of the encyclopaedic project; and, highly structured and repeated attempts to stop the disruption have not succeeded. That you're not understanding that your conduct is highly problematic to the project is worrying. It makes me seriously consider seconding calls for either an RFC/U or a community ban in the problem topic area as ways forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, reading through the talk page, it seems Darkstar1st is back to his/her old

talk

) 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

First, just as a point of information, as you can see here Belsham was added in Oct 2008 by an anonymous IP and improved later me with a decent reference. Darkstar1st may have re-added him after he fell out after some edit war.

As I wrote at the talk page after playing catch up at talk: I wasn't ready to go there (ANI), but can understand why others might be. WP:Soapbox about people's opinions and questions regarding general views, and vague references to some problem in the text that we would be forced to have to figure out for ourselves have been the problem. Maybe Darksnot answers of six new threads with 10 word descriptions and a lot of opinions and "questions" that are just opinions, all inferring the same POV - dump the anarchists and leftists. One just never knows when some sensible edit is going to be reverted with a waterfall of six new threads with 10 word titles and a lot of opinions, all inferring the same POV - dump the anarchists and leftists. It's totally distracting and disruptive, including from those occasions when he has a legitimate point. I think it would encourage me to help clean up the article if he had to take a six month break from it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur that the tendentious

WP:IDHT behavior presents a huge barrier to progress at the article. North8000 may choose to overlook the behavior from the small tendentious minority, but it is certainly persistent and quite frustrating. Every few weeks, one of the editors in this vocal minority seeks to overturn consensus that has been clearly established [*here, here, here, here, here, and here

]. I guess this is a small step up from the vocal minority starting up an RfC every 4 days on average [no exaggeration], but I do wish there were a remedy available so that these editors could finally "get it" that collaborative editing oftentimes means accepting community decisions that you may not like or that conflict with your preferred POV. The months of this behavior is truly excessive.

Darkstar1st in particular seems to introduce difficulties, as he seems to read very selectively based on his POV. It's almost as if he steels his POV and then goes through the article looking for the merest cherry-picked sentence fragments which conflict with his POV and that he thinks he can assault based on comments from the talk page. Here's one exchange I've had with Darkstar1st that I found discouraging. BigK HeX (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The mess and gridlock at that article is very complex, and very unlike most other contentious WP articles. Brief, low key comments by Darkstar on the talk page are certainly NOT the problem there. I have no stomach for starting to spar with these folks. I make my main point and request below. I just want someone besides me to tell them to chill out have a cup of tea.

Regarding the oft-abused RFC,s, in my 6-7 months at the article, there were basically a bunch of RFC's that I would call false starts in a spirited debate that never really had substantive discussions and never really went anywhere, and one that had substantive discussions and a real conclusion. Since then everybody has been misrepresenting and misusing the results of the RFC (s)North8000 (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think a Big Gulp of tea is needed - some of the comments against Darkstar verge on the outrageous. Collect (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you add Libertarianism to your watchlist for a while.

Operative: "I should tell you, so that you don't waste your time. You can't make me angry."

Inara: "Please, spend an hour with him."

-- from Serenity

talk

) 20:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This accidentally points out the more pervasive problem at the Libertarianism article

This article has been a painful situation of continuous warring, and the main method of warring has been to continuously hurl accusations of violating wp rules without much basis or for the most minor of things, and continuously doing the same on notice boards. In my 1/2 year there, I've not even seen a POV difference at the root of this, just warring for the sake of warring. Even though I consider at two of them to be friends, I want to report this behavior on Fifelfoo, TFD and Yworo. The proof is right here in this notice. One need only READ the diffs provided by Fifelfoo, and then read what those three folks have said in this notice about what Darkstar said in those diffs. It's so obvious that I need say no more. I don't want any sanctions, I just want someone to tell those three folks to CHILL OUT and have a cup of tea. The article could use such a notice with that same advice for one or two more folks over there. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What the article needs is a couple of strong but uninvolved editors to help head off the silly side tracking as it starts to happen :) I gave it a shot but honestly don't have the time or will power to keep it up --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have only posted to the discussion page twice this year, and last edited the article in September. TFD (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(added later) My mistake. I confused / combined you with someone else. I am so sorry! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The article hasn't even been on my watchlist for months, I only noticed the renewed problems b/c another issue brought me to AN/I, which I also haven't been watching for months. Clearly, my two or three comments since this thread was opened can't possible demonstrate "the real problem".

talk

) 13:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't have much time now, but what I meant is that the only disruption and warring going there is these continuous false accusations of warring/disruption. My "want to report this behavior" statement was more intended to use this is an example, unusually clear cut in this case, and only in the context of asking for a "chill out" recommendation to be given. I did not intend to imply anything regardign those three individuals beyond that, and apologize if it sounded like anything beyond that. This is not to dilute my overall thought and frustration. I am so sick and tired of the pointless endless acrimony at the article!!! Two reasons I haven't abandoned it are the importance of information on the topic, and the fact that the acrimony is pointless....., and not really over anything....just fighting for the sake of fighting. It is not fueled by a RW conflict like all of the hopeless contentious WP articles. are. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

my edits are an attempt to reconcile the contradictions

How can anarchy be a school of libertarian, if all libertarians originated from anarchy?, that is like saying Christianity is a school of Lutheranism. apologies for using too few words in the past to illuminate what i considered obvious. the article says anarchy is the origin of libertarianism as well as one of two libertarian schools of thought. why is it a school of thought, isnt it actually simply itself? should the followers of anarchy be called anarchist? if not, would someone please explain what is the difference between an anarchist, and a libertarian in the anarchist school? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Content issues are not resolved at AN/I, only behavioral issues. This is not the place for that discussion.

talk

) 13:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

correct, but since we are here, do you see my point? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on improving articles must be based on sources, not our own reasoning. And the place to discuss article content is on article talk pages, not ANI threads. TFD (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

tdf i copied the text in this section from the talk page. i noticed you have yet to discuss my content there concerning this issue. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. All discussion needs to be based on sources. If you provide a source that answers that question one way or the other, then that source's POV can be explicated in the article. General discussion without sources is not useful. That's been explained to you repeatedly in the past.

talk

) 13:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

no source required, libertarian is a school of anarchy if anarchy is the origin of libertarian. the reverse is a contradiction such as the article currently reads. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are always required. Use of logic is

talk

) 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st seems to have a serious misunderstanding of even the most basic/elementary set logic. This tends to add to the frustration with his edits and proposed edits. Again, I'll reference the discussion here: User_talk:BigK_HeX#how_is_anarchy_different_from_left-libertarian.3F BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to say that Darkstar's discussison are perfect, but there is no rule that say that putting a comment in a talk page without sourcing is not OK. Doubly so that doing so is not an ANI offense.

Again, not to say that Darkstar's discussions are perfect, but in this confusing mess of an article in a field where there is a morass of terminology/naming issues, IMO, discussions to help sort that are useful and important for article development. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is he can't control his disruptive habits, and therefore it is difficult to take his occasional valid points seriously, if one ever can find them after wading through long subject title, vague complaints more like opinions/soapbox, the necessity to question him to find out what the complaint is, always being wary of what new strategy this is for getting rid of the WP:RS material he doesn't like, etc etc. By the time the occasional valid point is comprehended, one must figure out how he wants to use it to support his goal of getting rid of the WP:RS material he doesn't like, to decide if he's just going to obstruct any attempt to solve the problem. Sometimes it gets solved; more often people get exhausted and give up. As I said on Libertarianism talk, let's just do an RFC/User, using the multiple complaints at ANI, his blocks, etc. and see what we can do to end the disruption over a number of articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have, at times, had very strong support for an RFC/USER with Darkstar1st. At present, I'd likely still have weak support for one. BigK HeX (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to let this notice make my case. People should actually read the diffs in the initial complaint here. Then see what folks have said/done here in response. People will see that there is nothing there that warrants this. And so then on to the real question.......what is going on here? North8000 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User notified

Can some other administrator please have some kind words with Gwillhickers about his canvassing? His interpretation seems to differ from mine, and a third or fourth opinion would be useful. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Left him a note, particularly referencing the RFC process. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag says that it should not be removed until the NPOV dispute is resolved. At

Note. Delia Peabody has been blocked as a sock puppet of banned user Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The majority commenting have not said the article is not neutral. Delia Peabody (talk · contribs) is the latest in a long line of LaRouche accounts since 2004 who have repeatedly added the NPOV tag, then tried to use it as a bargaining chip. If an established editor clearly unrelated to LaRouche were to add the tag after trying and failing to resolve a specific issue on talk, then of course it would be respected. See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who originally added the tag, but I have gone over the article carefully and made very specific observations on the talk page about problems with neutrality, as have others. I believe the message on the tag about not removing it is clear, and I don't believe that the tag was added frivolously. It looks like the dispute has been going on for about a month, and the participants are not predominantly newbies. I also think that the branding of editors who disagree with SlimVirgin as "LaRouche accounts" is a tactic that should be discouraged. Delia Peabody (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And am I also a LaRouche account? John lilburne (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My simple take on this is that the article has been 'owned' by 2 people for about 5 or 6 years, that they have battled through various notice boards, and banning processes throughout that time (the latest being in the last few weeks), and both argue that the article in question is neutral. Yet when I asked whether they have ever allowed anything positive to be said about the subject of the article the response I got was that in one instance they ameliorated the term 'savage'. John lilburne (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be frank I don't care about arguing the toss over specific instances of phrasing in this article. I just want to say that if this article is an example of a NPOV by two experienced editors working on it for several years, then heaven help the rest, because a system that after 6 years ends up with this is severely broken. John lilburne (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

John, you've made 58 edits to articles, and you made clear on the talk page that you hadn't read the LaRouche source material, so with respect how would you know whether the article is neutral? Neutrality involves presenting a balanced account of the sources, and that is what the article does. If anything, it is slanted in LaRouche's favour.

The issue is simple. People who work for Lyndon LaRouche, whether as employees or volunteers, have a strong

conflict of interest, and shouldn't be editing the article about him. That ignores the rampant sockpuppetry; it ignores the offwiki attacks; and it ignores that the LaRouche position is a tiny-minority view. The COI argument is strong enough on its own. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For 'a tiny-minority view' there is an awful lot about it on WP, in fact there seems to be more here than on Jimmy Carter. and apparently it spreads off into other areas too, a similar sized article on the 'movement' too. One might say that it borders on an obsession. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are claiming that any one that wants to make a judgement on this article has to have all the sources, and then gone and read all the sources that were rejected over 6 years, and all the various notice boards discussions, then you are placing an impossible burden on anyone wanting to comment on the process. I do not doubt that the sources will say, what you have said they said in the article, I do not suspect that you have misrepresented them. However, some sources have been picked and others reject, and that is where I suspect that bias has crept in. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That you are unable to point to a single source, used in the article, that isn't critical, is a strong indicator that the article is not neutral. The guy could well be a complete rotter and bounder for all I know, but 100+ picked sources saying so is surely over egging the pudding somewhat. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of a book I read last year by Robert Hutchinson on Thomas Cromwell in which there was nothing good to be said, and every action was ascribed to venal motives. A deeply unsatisfying read. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Numerous sources are used for the article, including many written by LaRouche and his associates, and they span the range of views on the subject.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Thomas Cromwell biography mentioned above also used numerous sources, it still didn't mean that it was in any way balanced. But as you've been working on this article for 5 years, and participated in all the discussion, you'll be able to show us where a source was used in such a way that venal motives aren't being ascribed to this guy and 'his associates'. That is all that is being asked of you, which I think is a reasonable request to make of any neutral editor, who we assume is in command of his sources. You should be able to provide a few examples, after all it has been a week since I first asked. John lilburne (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you asked for "positive sources" that include "positive" assertions. I provided you with several examples. You denied that running for U.S. President, proposing AIDS-related legislation, or meeting with foreign leaders were positive accomplishments. You also refused to actually read the article. For the record, I'd hope we can all agree that LaRouche's two autobiographies, which is cited extensively, is not what you'd call a "critical" source. In all, the article cites LaRouche movement sources at least 32 times.

However this isn't the right venue to discuss the neutrality of articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong I never said I hadn't read the article. I said I didn't 'give a damn about the minutia in the article', which is exactly what I've said above, and elaborated upon here. Also running for political office is NOT, repeat NOT a positive achievement 10,000s of people do that every year, and some do so in order to defer a prosecution, or for other non noble reasons. Running for US president isn't a positive achievement either, its a notable event, just as when the Yippies nominated a pig. Also meeting foreign leaders isn't a positive achievement either, again at best it is a notable event, you need to understand the differences here. Also a proposal of legislation is not a positive achievement in itself. It might be a notable event, though as 100,000s do that every year, one would expect the proposed legislation to be somewhat notable in itself. For you information a positive achievement would be if some one manages to get legislation passed that actually improves the lot of humanity. John lilburne (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If all you can say is that the article is neutral because "we've said he's run for president, and he's met with some foreign bigwig" then no wonder people are questioning the process here. John lilburne (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're still concerned about this then let's take it to the

WP:NPOVN. The sourcing of a biography doesn't require administrative action.   Will Beback  talk

  10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be dandy if the article as it stands could be rescued by a bit of judicious tweaking. The resistance to acknowledging that anything is wrong by the two main authors makes one think that perhaps the thing has been so poisoned that it needs to be stubbed out and rearchitected. John lilburne (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues like this seem to be quite common at

WP:NPOVN. A helpful answer as to how editors should treat a "source" can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN#is_NPOV_a_factor_when_discussing_sources.3F

. The Editor "J.Johnson" says, quote:

"Acceptable" depends on the context. Editors should not simply parrot every "interesting" remark made about their subject: Wikipedia is not a gossip column. It is an encyclopedia, and tries to be a serious, credible encyclopedia. Which means that the material in article should be researched. The first requirement is that everything is "sourced" (traceable back to some source that presumably knows what they are talking about). Hopefully these sources are reliable, and even neutral. But even if Satan himself says 2+2=4, we do not despise the arithmetic "truth" of 2+2=4. In some contexts, sure, you might find good reason to quote or take material from a very non-neutral source. But editors still have a responsibility to produce neutral material ("balanced", see WP:WEIGHT). CNN might have some pertinent material about Ted Williams, but (esp. in this case) it might also be highly biased; an editor would be expected to check a range of sources, and evaluate the entire context. So strictly speaking the specific answer to your question is "no". But more fully the answer is: depends on how you use it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to focus the attention on this sentence: "CNN might have some pertinent material about Ted Williams, but (esp. in this case) it might also be highly biased; an editor would be expected to check a range of sources, and evaluate the entire context". Now, we had the case in TALK:Lyndon Larouche a case where WB asserted, that context is not very relevant, quote: "Regarding HK/Angel's flight's assertion of a misused quote, I don't see it. While King did quote a line without giving extensive context, that isn't necessarily an error. He didn't assign any specific meaning to it and readers can interpret it for themselves. It's not an example that proves the book unreliable." My point is, that while the sourcing of a biography may indeed not require "administrative action", it requires careful evalution of the sources, and certainly not a "leave it to the reader" - attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor: Are there any sources available that are not critical? If there are not, or if there are only a very few, then writing a "50/50 = neutral" article would be giving
  undue weight to the non-critical sources. Quoting from that page: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. I'm not saying it is or isn't the case here, but that that should be kept in mind when determining whether or not the page is "neutral". - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course one wouldn't expect a 1:1 split. But one would expect at least a 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, or 1:9 split. Unfortunately the two editor involved can't provide any examples. Even if it was a 1:100 split, you'd think they would remember as it would have been a memorable event. John lilburne (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

@bushranger: Please keep in mind, that, apart from SVs insistance that LaRouche presents a quote "tiny minority view", even though and especially because it seems to be a "minority", that it does deserve the same uncompromised, neutral treatment as any other viewpoint, see Galileo Galilei. It is oftentimes not the amount of existing sources, but the selection of them and out of them, which makes the difference between a biased and a neutral treatment. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: 81.210.206.223 is a single purpose account focused on LaRouche articles.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For the complete picture it is helpful to look at the revision history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&limit=500&action=history of "Lyndon Larouche" which gives a more complete history of the problems involved.81.210.206.223 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor I've stayed out of what has been going on at the LaRouche page, but I have been keeping an eye on the discussions going on there and I must agree that there are definite NPOV issues going on. I think the main issue is that, yes, there are a lot of pro-LaRouche accounts getting involved in the discussion, but SlimVirgin is also extremely anti-LaRouche. It is this sort of clash that is causing issues at the page. Silverseren^C 01:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Slimvirgin isn't pro-LaRouche, but I don't see her engaging in non-neutral editing on this topic either. If there are particular neutrality issues that you notice then you're invited (not that you need an invitation) to raise them on the article's talk page.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment about removing NPOV tags. I have zero involvement with the LaRouche articles, and I intend to keep it that way. My gut feeling on reading the discussion here is that I would likely agree with SlimVirgin and Will Beback on the content issues that are involved, and I recognize that there are serious issues here with respect to socks. But I have a comment on the original issue of this thread: removing tags. At animal rights-related pages, I've had some pretty adversarial interactions with SlimVirgin and some other editors over NPOV tags that they have insisted on removing, and I'm definitely not anyone's footwear. Slim herself was on the other side of the situation when editors at Intelligent design wanted to remove an NPOV tag that she placed there. It seems to me that the best thing to do with such tags is always to insist that the tag be discussed in talk, but not to remove the tag either until there is consensus, or if the tagger declines to participate in talk. I fully realize that it can be annoying to put up with these ugly tags on pages that one believes to be neutral, all the more so when the tagger is raising a perennial issue that has already been answered, and even worse when the tagger appears to be a sock or other disruptive type. But I've never seen the sky fall when a tag remains on a page. Instead of reverting it, deal with it, then you can remove it later in good conscience. Here, I am concerned that the conclusion ought not to be that, since the tagger was apparently a sock, removing the tag was OK. Better to determine that the socking occurred, first, and then remove the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  Well said.

  talk

  ) 19:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious block

User: Delia Peabody was just blocked, as noted by Will Beback above. Please see this section on Delia's talk page, where there are concerns raised about the lack of evidence being presented when asked. In response to Cla68 asking to be emailed the SPI info, Will responded with "I doubt you'd be satisfied with any amount of evidence" and refused to share the information. I find this to be highly concerning and raise suspicions of mine that Delia is not a sock of Herschelkrustofsky at all, but was instead blocked to remove yet another person in the pro-LaRouche side, as Will Beback is the one other person that has been working with SlimVirgin on the talk page and is, thus, clearly involved in the situation.

Also, as Cla68 pointed out on Delia's talk, why does Will have access to this SPI information in the first place if he is an involved editor? This only heightens my concerns. Silverseren^C 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If Cla68 is actually engaging in off-wiki coordination with HK (as was claimed in one of the earlier threads), then sending nonpublic info to Cla68 that could help HK's socks avoid detection would be clearly not be in the encyclopedia's interests. If there's some real doubt about Delia Peabody, IMO it's enough to get an additional opinion from some other checkuser beside the main one handling the report. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Will didn't block Delia; I did. I am not involved in LaRouche content editing; I am involved (on and off) with administrative / protective issues such as page protection and sockpuppet identification and blocking.

My block was done on behavioral evidence, which was extensive and included some very specific patterns I am not going to go in to in public as it would tip HK off to how we find him. It included detailed comparisons with other, recent CU-and-IP-address confirmed HK socks.

Subsequent to my behavioral based block, a CU was performed privately, and the results confirmed that Delia was part of a sockpuppet accounts group which included 2 other editors, who were both then blocked. Unsurprisingly both were editing in LaRouche topics. This is apparently yet another new IP range for them to be using; they have become aware that we ID groups of them that way, but are not yet getting a whole new IP block for each and every account they create.

Another checkuser, Lar, is now following up with the one who made the connections I mention, as Lar is skeptical of some of the evidence. I'm not privy to the details, as I'm not a checkuser. Larry will presumably discuss the results if he disagrees with earlier findings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I never stated that Will was the one that blocked the account, I already knew that you did, George. But what I still don't understand is why Will is privy to the specific information that was found out in this CU, when he is a very involved editor in this subject area? Unless he isn't privy to the information and was lying on the talk page. Which is it? Silverseren^C 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

After I blocked, the CU did the check and then emailed myself and Will with the information that Delia and the other two accounts were CU confirmed sockpuppets. No email I saw contained protected private information such as IP address or identity info; it was merely a 'the result was that these accounts are sockpuppets'.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so he wasn't lying, per se, he was just exaggerating the extent of his information. Alright. I still don't understand why he was sent the info. I mean, if you're going to send it to him, you might as well send it to SlimVirgin as well. Silverseren^C 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear that, but wouldn't it have been cleaner if it had been done through an SPI so that everybody could have seen that statement? That way, justice could have been seen to be done. We had a similar lengthy discussion here regarding

WP:DUCK then fine, but if CU is needed, why not do it formally through SPI? - David Biddulph (talk

) 18:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I just work here...

If someone would like to file a SPI request, to get the result confirmed "on the record" that those three accounts are all socks of each other, that's fine by me. I didn't ask for the info, it was sent to me as an interested party as I'd just blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I just think we should have stuff like blocks on the public record whenever they're enacted. Obviously, we shouldn't reveal private information, but we should have a record that this person was blocked for this reason by this person. CU was confirmed, blah, blah, blah. It's when you don't have rightfully public info like this on display that you gets calls about there being a cabal or a conspiracy going on and, rightfully so, for what else are people supposed to think when this info is hidden from them? Silverseren^C 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We have not made a general policy, to date, requiring CUs to go "on the record" with results that supported a block.

I don't oppose doing so. Some actual CUs might object, I don't know. Would be good to ask them.

I think it would help admins who are following up later on other SPI / abuse reports.

Part of the problem is that with private CUs, the checkuser doesn't necessarily know / follow up on what the admin did after being told the results. So they don't know if they would need to "put it on the record". This complicates things.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just say that all CUs that are done by a checkuser need to be reported in some sort of public place, much like how SPIs are reported in their area? They aren't in charge of what is done with the information, but having the transparency of the results of CUs would help all sides, I think. Silverseren^C 19:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There's resistance to that, as a lot of CUs turn up negative results, and posting that they were done would seem like an attack or black mark on the users. There may well be other good reasons not to post them all, including what happens if you find something that opens a seriously big can of worms (like, finding a very senior admin or arbcom member doing something Wrong, etc). Some things need to be reviewed and investigated more in private before actions are taken.

I agree with more openness, it's somewhat delicate though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Delia Peabody (talk · contribs) has been linked to Tidyborg (talk · contribs) and Pachuco cadaver (talk · contribs).

It's worth noting that Tidyborg was created this month to add this template to the LaRouche talk page. The same edit was first made to another LaRouche page in August by

It's also worth noting that Leatherstocking denied having any connection to LaRouche before he was found to be editing from a LaRouche office. See for example [11] and [12] Most of the other longer-term accounts have done the same: denied all knowledge and said they were being victimized, until the technical or behavioral evidence became too strong. It's unhelpful to be naive about this. This is serious long-term abuse carried out by one or two long-term employees of LaRouche (staff, not just supporters), and we shouldn't be having to argue each case anew when it's so obvious. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why i'm saying that we should be more transparent with CUs and blocks for behavioral evidence. If we have a place where such information is announced, such as in a SPI case archive, then we wouldn't have as much arguing because those publically accessible areas can be pointed to. The main reason for most of the controversy here is all of the secrecy and back-room information trading that was not initially put out in the open. If it had been stated clearly in the beginning, this wouldn't have happened. Silverseren^C 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this wouldn't have happened," and most of the behavioral evidence can't be made public, for obvious reasons. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's be frank, shall we? For six years a whole series of unnecessarily long articles pertaining to LaRouche have been owned by two editors, SlimVirgin and Will Beback. They have cleverly cherry-picked sources to conform to their POV, and if you challenge them, they will get all indignant and say, "But we're only using reliable sources!" And if you continue to challenge them, then ipso factor you are pro-LaRouche (and probably not just a supporter, but an employee,) and you have become a "LaRouche account." Then, they have an admin, Georgewilliamherbert, who does bans on request, and they have a checkuser, Jpgordon, who will provide semi-plausible CU data on request. Don't forget: they have orchestrated bans on so many different accounts, from so many different locations and IP ranges, that they can probably connect your IP to at least one of them. So don't mess with their articles! With Warmest regards, Orange claw hammer (talk)

"Let's be Frank"? Who's Frank? Is that the ID of your sockmaster? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CU time, I suppose? And, no worries, Mr. Orange claw hammer, while i'm not going to say anything about your personal attacks on other editors, have no fear about the LaRouche article. I've read through it and seen that there are definite neutrality issues that I plan to help rectify. Silverseren^C 21:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

HK has used over 100 socks over the past seven year, many before he was first blocked then banned in 2006. Not a single block of a sock account has been overturned due to misidentification. With his various sock accounts, HK has made far more edits to Lyndon LaRouche, over 1200, than any other editor. The accounts typically push the same issues and make the same personal attacks on other editors. Off Wiki, HK continues to attack WP editors on a forum where he is the senior administrator. The person is clearly devoted to the topic and obsessed with Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that editors in good standing offer him support.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not offering him support. The LaRouche article is clearly negatively biased. Anyone can see that just from a passing read through. I'm hoping to help fix that by the application of reliable sources that can help make the information more neutral and encyclopedic. If you think improving the article is offering HK support, then I guess we have different opinions on how to edit Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 21:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll challenge you to find some. My journalist contact in the US, who says he is heavily biased against LaRouche, informs me that media interest in LaRouche was 30 years ago; that he barely gets a passing mention these days; and that it would be a major surprise if anyone could find any media coverage that wasn't biased; there certainly won't be any recent reliable reportage, unless someone had very specific reasons to investigate claims. IMO the bias in this article is that it is too long and gives greater prominence to the subject than is actually required. Also that it has been over egged and polished to give the impression that this is something relevant for today. Given the obsession evidenced in these articles and discussion one wonders whether or not a LaRouchite eloped with someone's daughter/son wife/husband. John lilburne (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(SPI filed on Orange claw hammer, though it's rather glaringly obvious who it is)

The insidious problem is that an active sockpuppet tends to eventually drive off even their content allies, leaving only the enforcement-oriented admins to keep battling it out as it were. This is not a desirable state of affairs.

As I have said, I'm not editing the content on the articles themselves, as I am tangled up on the admin side rather much. However, I strongly encourage anyone who has a well established WP editing career (i.e., is clearly NOT yet another sockpuppet run by the LaRouche organization) to feel free to start contributing on the article and improve it. We need the help.

It's a little sensitive - Please don't help the socks out, as Will pointed out in a somewhat oversensitive way IMHO. But legitimate interest in neutrality and good article content from established editors in good standing? Much appreciated, personally, and hopefully by all.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Silverseren, with respect, you're not in a position to make that judgment until you're familiar with the source material. The LaRouche article, including the lead, significantly understates both the range and depth of the criticism of him—and the problematic issues attributed to him (which he often doesn't see as criticism, because he stands by them)—in high-quality reliable sources from the 1970s until the present day.

If you do want to help out, I've posted links to the New York Times and Washington Post archives about him on the talk page, which will get you started. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In his day, Lyndon Larouche got a lot of publicity and was widely regarded as a looney. But that was then. Since no one really give's a rat's donkey about Larouche anymore, maybe we should stop fighting it and let the guy have his way with the article. Only be sure and post a disclaimer that the article is an experiment, and that other editors may wish to write a separate, non-fiction version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct. In his day he ruffled a number of feathers within the political establishments, and for one reason or another he became the hate figure de jour (and for some the hate figure de millénaire), he provoked passions and you were either for him or against him. There are no unbiased sources to find as none were ever written, and only those that are still fighting the 1970s and 1980s care about any of it today. In the UK the nearest we have would be Arthur Scargill. John lilburne (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

American System Publications

I was just wondering, has this organization been banned from editing Wikipedia? It appears that at least part of the justification for blocking some accounts as socks is because they edited from this organization. I'm told, however, that between 100 and 200 people staff that organization and have access to the Internet. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Who told you that?   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a picture of it. Now, is anyone who edits from this facility who tries to add neutral or positive material to a LaRouche article and suggests using a LaRouche-published publication as a source going be blocked on sight? Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, who told you how many people work at ASP? Would it be incorrect to guess that you've discussed this with HK, and that it's he who gave you this information?   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Will,

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You're really crossing the line to suggest some one Cla86 is in communication with HK The Resident Anthropologist (Talk | contribs

) 06:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think it would be inappropriate for Cla68, or an admin like Lar, to be communicating with HK then you'll be shocked to read WikipediaReview. But we still don't know the source for Cla68's information about the LaRouche movement office in Los Angeles, a place from which a number of abusive socks have been found to be editing. One long term sock, user:Leatherstocking repeatedly and angrily denied any connection or support for the LaRouche movement until we determined that he was editing from the ASP office itself. The general issues is if a banned editor is know to be editing from a fixed IP, and then another account comes along using the same IP and promoting the same POV, it's usual and ordinary to assume that it's the same person.   Will Beback  talk  07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Will, it sounds as if you are saying that anyone who edits from that organization should be banned as an HK sock. That picture I linked to shows a fairly large facility. Are you saying that HK is the only person working there? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you and SV know that the organization is "tiny?" Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the pictured building is not that large. It certainly isn't big enough to fit '100 or 200 people', as a mysterious person told you. In any case, I don't see any further need for administrative action on this issue.   Will Beback  talk  08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My offices look to be no bigger than that and we have space and 100 people per floor, and we are not cramped by any means. John lilburne (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source (but more reliable than a mere picture anyway): this claims "Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of approximately 1 to 4. ". I have found no reliable info on this company, no news or anything, and the only publication I could find was written by someone with the same surname as the company president... For a company with 100 to 200 people staff, they are extremely low-profile.

Fram (talk

) 08:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your link says that Dun & Bradstreet estimate the number of employees to be 88. John lilburne (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

These are not real companies. LaRouche set them up in the 1980s to promote his views, and he is their sole client (see mention of that in this court case, para 2 and footnote 1). His staff move between several of these entities (e.g. American System Publications and Executive Intelligence Review News Services, known as EIRNS or EIR News Services). Office space is rented and "organizers" sit there all day posting LaRouche promotional material on the Web, including Wikipedia, and making cold calls to try to persuade people to give money. The building at 310 Carmel Street, Los Angeles, is small (the photo posted above makes it look larger than it is; look it up on Google Street View instead), and the LaRouche people share it with other companies.

The key point is that they have a strong conflict of interest when it comes to LaRouche, because they're paid specifically to promote him. Focusing too much on the sockpuppetry misses that point.

single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." See the blocking policy for the same point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone in that area could swing past the building and check the size of its parking lot. I don't see how it matters though. If the building is connected with LaRouche and is generating a stream of LaRouche-related editing, it's not rocket science to see that as a problem. There was something similar in the Scientology arbitration, where a bunch of IP addresses connected to the Church of Scientology got banned from editing Scientology-related articles. Note that this is not just about LaRouche articles--Angel's Flight most-edited article was death panel, and there was some possible connection with similar-viewpoint accounts in some other healthcare-related articles. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But the accounts aren't being blocked for COI they are being blocked for being sockpuppets of HK. Besides it is a bit ingenuous to complain about them being COI accounts as ANYONE spending any length of time, particularly years, editing these articles has a COI. LaRouche simply isn't a major figure, but like Marmite you either love him or hate him there appears to be no middle ground. An article on some obscure parochial politician, that has grown to be bigger than the one on Jimmy Carter, just has to have been the result of obsessive love and hate. John lilburne (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey did I ever tell you about the TYRANNY of the ODD SOCKS? Friend back in the late 60s decided that having to wear a matching pair of SOCKS was a tyrannical imposition which he would have no more truck with, and that from then on would never wear matching SOCKS. A few months later he was cursing a swearing because he couldn't find an odd SOCK to go with the one he wanted to wear. John lilburne (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's comments like the above that make me wonder whether SlimVirgin should be editing the LaRouche page, when they are clearly anti-LaRouche and, I would say, have trouble with being neutral on the subject. Where do you even get your information about LaRouche offices anyways, SlimVirgin? Silverseren^C 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe from the same source as Cla68. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

More likely to be from Erica Duggan, really. Silverseren^C 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So, effectively, yes editors coming from this location are assumed (with good reason) to be SPAs attempting to promote LaRouche. They may not be HK socks, but they're

So should Justin Bieber fans be banned from editing the Bieber article, Redsocks fans from editing that article, Californians from editing articles on California ... John lilburne (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between difference between fans and paid activists.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

True, the fans don't get paid for their activism. Silverseren^C 22:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we make it a rule now that any editors editing specific articles that can be confirmed to be editing from a place that is affiliated with said articles should be blocked as meatpuppets? Silverseren^C 22:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that SM already quoted the relevant policy above, and its threshold for blocking people.198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We should apply the policies the same way they're applied everywhere else. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Per SOCK, accounts that appear from behavioral or technical evidence to be sock or meatpuppets of a banned editor should be blocked. Per COI and BLOCK, accounts that appear to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion should be warned, then blocked if the pattern continues. And per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed ... not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be beneficial to ask ArbCom for a summary motion about ASP... should ASP be treated the same as those Scientology offices? If so, that will save some effort in the short run I expect. If not, then there is a need to change a few things. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any accounts who have edited from ASP who have plausibly denied being HK or his meatpuppets. There is ample evidence that the socks identified as HK are in fact HK and not some other person acting independently of him. I don't think there's a case for the ArbCom to look at.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think something a bit more formal than the say so of you and SV is needed here, and a summary motion (perhaps an amendment to a prior case?) might be the right level of formality. If ArbCom won't support such a finding (that ASP IPs need to be treated as completely disallowed to edit from), then perhaps there isn't actually a basis for the HK bugaboo. Why resist such a finding if there IS such a basis? ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stupid question why are the ranges that ASP operates not hardblocked if we know HK socking is coming from them? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think only because no one got round to doing it. Based on the logged-out edits, [13] the range is a small one, 68.164.112.176/29 (68.164.112.176 – 68.164.112.183). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not block then? SInce it is undeniable high amounts of abuse are coming in from it I cant see any hurtles to blocking. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, blocking the ASP-registered IPs would do little to stem the tide of HK's socks. He apparently uses ASP's computers but he also uses a variety of other IPs as well.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm under no delusion that it will stop them but its a range where no good contributions can really come from. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember when Wikipedia (in the person of David Gerard) blocked an entire suburb of Salt Lake City to try to prevent User:WordBomb from editing, or when a good percentage of IP ranges from various universities was blocked to try to prevent Scibaby from editing Wikipedia? Range blocks are counterproductive. Anyway, it appears to me that any account which edits the LaRouche topic and advocates using a LaRouche publication as a source gets labeled under "behavioral evidence" as being an HK sock. Then, based on that a checkuser is performed which, if it traces to the IP range used by that company, results in a block as an HK sock. Until the ArbCom bans that organization from editing Wikipedia, they are allowed to edit here as long as they obey the rules. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence in this case was much more extensive than "advocates using a LaRouche publication". And will not be discussed on-wiki, as telling HK what signature we're using to detect him is unwise. Please don't take HK's word that some of the accounts blocked as being his socks were someone else. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that they're not obeying the rules, and have shown no indication that they wish to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to think of Oscar776 (talk · contribs). I see up to a level 4 warning for disruptive edits, a very large number of creations that got AFDed or speedied. Nothing is terribly wrong with their edits, but I do have to question their competence:

• Here, they completely fail at adding an image.
• Here, they somehow manage to add categories from a band's article to one of their albums' articles, somehow adding a {{good article}} tag in the process.
• Changing an image's name to the name of a nonexistant image, then changing it back a minute later
• Trying to push
  WP:WIAGA
• Constant addition of good faith but unsourced material
• Egregious typos
• Creation of very short stubs about songs, with little more content than an infobox
• Complete ignorance of talk page — user has never posted to another's talk page, nor have they responded on their own.

Again, nothing too major at this point, but several small issues put together can become big. This user seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio, and I was wondering if anything should be done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please review this? I am sick of dealing with this issue. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume, noting this post, that this issue no longer requires input by admins? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Account blocked as a Ragusino sock, and attempted outing suppressed. Should further socks or meatpuppets start editing the article, I suggest a request to

WP:RPP. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close and summarize

Somewhat off topic. I think we need to get rid of that ugly-ass pink background shown when an admin edits a protected article. I know why it's there but it hurts my eyes :(. A better choice might be a light gray. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Red for danger. Having that colour on fully protected pages is a reminder that the article is fully protected. Jarring as it may be, it should stay. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archive. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• If no response is forthcoming in ~7 days then it probably isn't an incident needing immediate admin attention. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)