Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Troed (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 30 December 2009 (→Inappropriate editing of a protected page by Prodego). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

"RfC: Oppressive editing and page ownership" at Talk:Global warming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Really, nothing for admins to do here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that really is the title of the RfC. Yes, the thread is filled with every bit as much good faith and productive discussion as you might think it could be. I just dropped it in an archive box for a second time as part of an attempt to get the editors to focus on improvements to the article there and each other elsewhere if necessary. If somebody could keep an eye on it (or tell me why I am off base on this one), I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I support global warming 100%, But the tactics of the supporters is heavy handed, receiving multiple negative media accounts, and maybe deserving such RFC title sections.

Rename the section, don't close the section. When editors are not able to speak out and express their frustration the situation gets worse, especially when an admin swoops in and tries to stop all argument on procedural grounds.

I would strongly encourage you to change your mind, reopen the debate, and rename the section. Short term closing RFC is only the easy solution in the short term.

Moderate the debate, don't squelch debate. Ikip 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

2/0I would urge you to rethink your position in stopping the RfC. There really is no better venue for this discussion than the article talk page. It is not a matter of individual editors acting wrongly but of a group of editors exerting excessive control over the page content. Any comment on their actions is immediately deleted from the talk page. It is not realistic to expect that this discussion should take place on user talk pages, it is the action of a group of editors that is being questioned here. Arbcom is the final resort and I am prepared to take this matter there if it is necessary but the original indecent has already been escalated out of all proportion by the heavy handed actions of the regulars. My original remark was essentially about an edit summary, with a reversion being wrongly classified as vandalism. Had the discussion on this subject been allowed to continue for a while that would have been the end of the matter but it was immediately deleted and this eventually resulted in my raising an RfC, a standard non-confrontational method of dealing with situation where agreement cannot be reached. Now the RfC has been effectively deleted and no uninvolved editors can now comment. This action supports my assertion that all opposition is being ruthlessly squashed. I have even suggested setting up a 'discussion' or maybe 'dissent' talk page where more general issues about the subject could be discussed, with a longer term objective of improving the page by ensuring that it represents all POVs fairly. This would leave the current talk page for discussion of more immediate improvements. I should add that this proposal does rely on the good faith of both sides to some degree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the problem with the RfC is just the title, please feel free to give it another title and reinstate it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, why don't you open another RfC, using a more appropriate title for the thread and starting a meaningful discussion on the problem. I've no doubt whatsoever that 2/0 acted in the utmost good faith, if a little too quickly- after all, the point of the RfC is to come up with an acceptable solution and, with a thread title like, it's likely to descend into a dramafest! HJMitchell You rang? 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The current RfC title accurately describes the problem, a group of regular editors are attempting to control the page. I fully understand that this page is a FA and that quality must be kept high to retain this status. This does not involve the deletion of dissenting opinions from the talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Accurate or not, it shows a complete lack of desire to resolve the issue. You have framed the discussion as a contrarian position - there is no chance for Win/Win ... it's a guranteed Win/Lose. Misplaced Pages is built on Consensus, and you've removed that chance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone has already noted this is not really the place for this discussion, it should be on the article talk page or even a sub page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As 2/0 suggests, there are more appropriate venues for the kind of discussion that was taking place on the thread. Although I supported the initial discussion as a means of airing grievances about talk page management (and in answer to some concerns have myself abated actions for which I was accused of being too aggressive in archiving), I think the discussion has ceased to be useful in that venue, and probably should be pursued through mediation, user RFCs, or arbitration. --TS 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Ikip, you are so right. The way forward is by reasonable, structured, and civil discussion of the issues involved not by total suppression of dissent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome someone else from the community to open another appropriate named RFC. Maybe 2over0? Having tried to stay out of this, I only know the general subject, not all the players.

Tony, I have not followed the argument at all, so you would know better, but in my general experience, escalating a situation rarely works, albeit based on all of the drama of the past few years, if any article needs some outside eyes, it is probably this one. Would these parties agree on mediation, or is there already too much bad blood? I guess there is only one way to find out...Ikip 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it would first be ncessary to find out who the parties are, and indeed what the dispute is supposed to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, every pro-warming editor assumes that all dissenters' statements and viewpoints are made in bad-faith. Every pro-warming editor assumes that any sources used by dissenters are lousy sources. Every pro-warming editor assumes that debate or edit disputes by dissenters are borderline vandalism to be ended as soon as possible. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? I don't suppose this is a subject where any editor is regarded as neutral, in so far that the first (and sometimes only) edit they make is perceived as one or the other - but it would make a refreshing change if some people were to work to a position that NPOV is attainable... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

LessVan heard, thanks very much for your response. I would like to note that your edit summary reads: "Talk:Global warming: pot - kettle - black - the - calling? In this instance only, no opinion on dispute." Would you mind explaining what you meant by that? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting that by your grouping all "pro-warming" editors as being inflexible and reactionary toward those who do not share their viewpoints in your comments on this page, that you are exhibiting exactly the same mindset - but in reverse. As for the specific matter(s) which gave raise to your complaints, I have not reviewed them and thus cannot offer an opinion on the validity of the concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. however, respectfully, I feel you are incorrect in your statement; a person who identifies a problem and its sources should not automatically be equated with the people causing the problem. One's response should be based on the evidence itself; I appreciate your referring to this in your comment as well. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk), 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

aside Does anyone really support global warming? As in "It'd be a grand thing if New Orleans, Venice and the country of Kiribati were all flooded. Let's burn an extra gallon of fossil fuel to help melt the ol' Ross Ice Shelf." befuddled Durova 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one of the climate guys of climategate fame stated he wished global warming turned out to be true so the science could be proven correct - so yes, in that respect, some people certain due support global warming. Also, increased temperatures would open up more land for farming/food production, which would be a good thing. Your comments about flooding are also rather inaccurate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page I was staggered to find that all dissent is ruthlessly squashed, even on the talk page any dissenting comment or suggestion seems to be immediately deleted. I fully understand that this article is an FA and this the content should be of the highest quality, supported by reliable sources, thus I would expect to see any poor quality material quickly removed from the article, however I would not expect to see the removal of dissenting material even if it is of poor quality, described as vandalism. Furthermore I would expect a little more leeway on the talk page, non-majority views should be discussed rather than immediately deleted. When I attempted to discuss these issues (which involved several editors) on the talk page this discussion was immediately deleted, I therefore proposed and RfC to attempt to get some uninvolved editors to give their opinions.

It is interesting that the title of this RfC ( Oppressive editing and page ownership) has been questioned but the RfC, the standard way of getting opinions from uninvolved editors, has been deleted. I think this fact rather proves that the RfC was justified. What exactly is the problem with letting it stand, are the current regulars afraid that outside opinion might go against them. It has been suggested that I take this to arbitration and that is exactly what I intend to do if even the RfC process is to be suppressed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin's concerns, and hope they will be given full attention. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and can't believe this is still an issue. Martin restored an edit that was egregious POV-pushing to the article. He was reverted. He started a massive, massive discussion about how upset he was about this. I can't possibly understand why; in his shoes I would probably feel horribly embarrassed and apologize for taking the time of all involved. (You (plural) may be able to tell that after my several comments on this IMO non-issue, my patience is waning. Sorry.) Awickert (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was valid with guidance support from WP:OWN and Misplaced Pages:Tag team among others for POV info suppression. Shutting the RFC down early was inappropriate, and does reinforce the original concerns. These concerns are difficult to diagnose and cure. The simple solution would seem to require the folks who may seems to control the range of discourse in a article by excessive negation ... to actuality propose compromises, with good faith that progress will occur. It's simple to say no, and requires great editing skill to work a reasonable compromise. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC was shut down because of concerns over its title and the quality of discussion within it and, going solely by the title and 2/0's word (which I have no reason to doubt), it was entirely appropriate. However, there also seem to be some valid concerns here about the management of the talk page and the way in which content is controlled on the article. Whether they are perceived or genuine, I have no idea. It seems the best way to resolve the issue would be to open a new RfC (under a nice, neutral, drama-free title) and attempt to thrash the issues out there (hopefully once and for all). However ANI is not the place to carry on this dispute. HJMitchell You rang? 00:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First, a compulsory history lesson

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Republican divisions of his Armada

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Conservative divisions of his Armada

Having lost these battles, he now complains about "oppressive editing and page ownership". But all that is going on is that the Global Warming page is editited just like most other scientific Misplaced Pages articles: Only peer reviewed sources are allowed in for statements about the science. We don't want to have endless debates that go nowhere anyway. We do tolerate editors on this page that would not be tolerated on other pages if they behaved in a similar way. There would have been an Arbcom case and the editors in question would have been topic banned a long time ago. So, I don't see how we can be accused of "oppressive editing and page ownership". Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

nice ad hominem arguments, Count Iblis. that all happened during a huge edit dispute two years ago. Here at Misplaced Pages, we follow WP:Civil#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment, WP:AGF, and WP:Discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want. If someone who disagrees can civilly make their argument, they may have a shot at getting something changed but for the most part, that issue is lost and is best left to the blogs ranting about it not here. Call it systemic bias if you want but it's not going to change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to bet? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I'm having trouble understanding your reply. Are you agreeing with us in the substance of our complaint, but simply claiming that nothing here can work? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I know they were said with tongue in cheek but I am challenging 'The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want' and, 'that issue is lost'. This is not how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't tongue in cheek. I've seen the talk pages. The current editors have carte blanche. All this discussion about how the talk page discussion is controlled doesn't happen in Misplaced Pages. It just doesn't. We sit around debating control but until you get to ARBCOM, nobody really cares about how discussions are controlled. Any attempt to discuss how the talk page is organized is inherently an personal attack on the people you claim to be in control. Drop the idea that (even if it exists) you'll be able to beat back the consensus on the page about how the article is framed and how the talk page is run. On its face, the Global Warming article uses scientific sciences only for the science (as people note, while there is debate out there in reliable sources, there is no scientific debate so any argument that it's being debated is ignored), but when discussing the effects, it goes into all reliable sources, scientific and not. Inherently, that looks biased, as some people don't believe there are any effects because they don't believe the science, so any source that minimizes the effects is going to be ignored because it may be minimizing the science. (Let's ignore the blatantly obvious point that, instead of noting the specific criticisms by skeptics in the relevant sections, we'll lump them all of them into one single paragraph, scientists and lay-persons together and say "some people argue"). However, I know when the consensus is set but if you guys want to tilt at windmills, go ahead. When it's a conduct issue, Misplaced Pages is inherently bad at fixing it (no talk page discussion, no RFC, nothing here works for that issue). Now, is there any reason why this section shouldn't be closed because of Talk:Global_warming#Misplaced Pages:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents? This isn't productive here, this isn't the complaints board, and no administrator here is going to do anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you make good points about the nature of edit consensus. however one thing I have to say in response is that the problem we see here is not the existence or strength of consensus, or the lack thereof; the problem is that even the existence of consensus does not give any editors the right to simply reject any and all further edits which in any way differ from the existing topics and themes. consensus is a way to manage an approach to an existing issue; not to give editors an excuse to reject all new or additional topics or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, as usual. And there is nothing requiring admin intervention. To remove one non-issue: Awickert's summary of MH's complaint is correct. LHvU's comments on Sm8900's comments are correct. If we believe Sm, then we have a very odd one-sided problem, with all the evil on one side. Naturally, this is wrong, and all the evil is on the other side :-). D: no: no-one "supports" GW in that sense. As to the substance, it appears to be absent. Who is complaining that they have a valid, scientifically-based addition to the GW pages that they are unable to discuss on the article talk pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that anyone here is evil, nor is anyone else here claiming that. however there is nothing wrong with saying that one set of editors, upholding one approach to the article, currently hold prevailing influence over the article, to the degree that they are excessively shutting out other editors' ideas on how the article should be developed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the ANI point

This ANI is about faith folks can have in a productive article development, with regards to the RfC that was closed. I see good concerns raised above about defining a "peer reviewed" process for only Scientific content in the article. Well .... this ANI is about the peer review process for the article itself. The RfC was to help resolve a dispute over the article's peer review process. Discussing content would be outside of an ANI. There is significant concern about a POV being owned by eds and specifically how the resolution is proceeding. Expertise would be most appreciated on resolving the perceived balance of power with regards to a suspected owned POV in the article, so that faith may restored and further DR can be avoided. The RfC and this ANI are the correct path to granting faith in wiki to resolve a perceived bias in the content. Restarting and redefining the RFC with reference to specific wiki guidance seems fair to me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been argued many times. The editors there have determined that they aren't biased and there's no POV there. If there's an actual point about the article (not "OMG, you all are BIASED!!!!"), then discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise, unless someone can point to a specific discussion with a particular individual with particular diffs, admins don't deal with "you all are biased" allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky is right. Perhaps someone should supply some diffs for the specific edits in question. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points, however the ANI was about the RFC, not diffs. Diffs can go into restarting the RfC along with sited guidance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things I could see wrong at Global Warming.

First thing to notice is a deficient article. You can see my protest in talk here: "Who is Dr Will Happer?". Happer (a very well published atomic physicist at Princeton) claims to have been sacked for dissent on the ozone hole by Al Gore back in 1993 - then kept his nose clean for years and eventually came back to say "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted". I don't care that he has "no publications ... directly related to the physics of climate change", he is notable enough to either get a mention, or at least to be included with other notable dissenters.

I quickly found more notable dissent, here and again, the reasons for excluding it only arouse suspicion. (An exasperated IP editor has thanked me - in case it's not obvious, that is not me, I've not solicited the support and have no idea who it is). And again here, where I've come to defend the complaints (though not the material) of two obviously exasperated IP editors. (Again, absolutely no connection to me in any way). The whole topic is not being treated in a fashion that does credit to the authors, it reeks of bias.

The second thing I found was seriously bad behaviour from the owners of the article. No way should editors be conspiring to remove comments as they blithely tell us they've agreed amongst themselves to do here. Most disturbingly, when I requested to see a listing of these "dispute resolutions previously undertaken" (including the agreement to delete anything in Talk they didn't want recorded), my request was deleted! As I said at the time, a proper shaking up is in order. It is difficult to have confidence in the present crowd producing a good article. Or articles, because I happened to approach this topic again at Snowball Earth after seeing the topic treated as orthodoxy on television. I found owners again simply reverting any mention of notable dissenters. In that case, the discussion I started here eventually had people telling me they didn't really know what they were talking about, I should go ahead and improve the article, but I (presumably) still mustn't do it the way I wanted. Please excuse me for deciding that Misplaced Pages is censored and I have better use for my time. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK policy is pretty clear: if it's not directly related to the article, it's not appropriate. General discussions about the global warming, commentary about whether certain individuals are controlling the article, rants about bad behavior don't discuss the article itself. If you want to play victim because nobody lets you rant, go ahead. You ask "who is Will Harper", you get a response that he doesn't directly work on climate change and you start ranting about what drew you to this article. Did you have an actual point? Did you want him added, deleted, a mention of him changed? Otherwise, it should be gone because your unsourced BLP-violating name-calling about "paid alarmists" is useless at worst and distracting at best. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

well, glad we could try to get some clarity on this. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see a section on "Dissent to GW", as I expected to find and as belongs there. What I got was attempts to personalise all discussions, as I'm seeing again. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a single paragraph. I agree that's pathetic, but from what I see, you aren't helping the discussions. Perhaps if you quit with the "everyone's all biased" arguments, people would take you a little bit seriously. Playing the "I'm not saying your all biased, and don't have any actual specific criticisims, I'm just observing and asking questions" routine (with idiotic section titles) isn't effective either. How about actual being straight-forward saying, "here's what I want, here's the suggested language, here's some reliable sources" and actually working on the article, not wanting another round of discussions about the way you think the discussions should be handled? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The single paragraph (bottom of a section called "Debate and sceptism") is so pathetic I'd not noticed it. It doesn't include the notable dissenter I was looking for when I first went to the article nor provide any of the search key words that might have led me there. Unlike, say, Evolution, where the opposing view is of negligible importance other than amongst religious fundamentalists - who can still find all the links they might need.

Hence, the article is deficient and remains that way because people like me cannot make edits and cannot discuss the changes the article urgently needs. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want something done, be specific and be on point. Hand-waving statements that the article is bad isn't going to get anyone anywhere. That's the equivalent of slapping a POV tag on the article and moving on. As for "it doesn't include what I want", that's not the point. The article is what consensus seems to include (or better yet, what the editors are willing to do). If you want it done, be specific and get a consensus for it. Otherwise, I don't see what the point of this ANI discussion is and I'm not surprised you aren't finding much productivity on the talk page. You seem intently focused on hand-waving and general statements for your martyrdom, not on doing the actual work that's needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

False information in reception section for video game articles?

I just recieved an interesting post to my talk page. This is tied into posts on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (and again) and Prototype. Honestly, I'm not quite sure exactly what's going on or if it should be reported here or elsewhere (say COIN) or how to describe it (it's 2:20 in the morning, gimme a break), but I thought it could use a couple of hundred other eyes to decide if it's a problem or a slightly odd troll (I've seen weirder around the internet, so I can't say for certain, though I'll assume good faith obviously)... Does this require investigating? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite interesting. If he is telling the truth, we might have a scandal on hand. I think that this could be a lie by someone who wants to gain favor on this site. The question is, if he worked for a company adding stuff to our pages, why doesn't he have a username? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

didnt Microsoft and other companies pay people to make their wikipedia articles "preferable" a while back?--Coldplay Expért 04:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably did as they are Microsoft. Although, since pretty much everyone owns something of theirs, I wonder why they would do that. I'm just wondering if he is telling the truth. If so, it would be worthy to investigate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came upon a link here that talks about Microsoft's thing. Apparently Jimbo and Bill Gates had a laugh over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I no longer work for the PR company, if I were to use the the username from that time I could be in serious trouble for violating my agreement with them. As a general rule when companies wish to edit Misplaced Pages and spam forums for marketing purposes they use a PR company, because the IPs will be so easily traced. Take for example the Nestle page here on Misplaced Pages, where an employee was altering the page for controversy reasons--I know not the specifics of that situation though--or the Monsanto incidents, among others, it tends to be a good idea to use a PR company.

I do not have a goal that would serve any particular corporate faction, or at least not knowingly, but I think something should be done about "reception" sections of Misplaced Pages. POV writing gets taken care of sometimes quite well by other editors, even with edits from those of us trained to find ways around that. But the fact that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (among other template-like patterns of reception sections) are on every single movie or video game page possible make me question the validity of Misplaced Pages articles.

Call of Duty MW2 was a sample I used to illustrate my point: How many reviews of the game were listed? I think eight or ten or something. How many different companies own those reviews? Well, I am sure you'll get the idea if you just click through the media links.

Let it be known this is mostly openly obtainable information, it is not a grand conspiracy. If you wish to see more media tactics check out FRONTLINE (since Frontline does not have commercials it can at times afford to be less biased abotu this particular issue) news about marketing to kids and the marketing of the future. I hope the WIkipedia community can develop effective ways of avoiding becoming just another marketing tool.

Lastly, I chose TheJadeFalcon's page to write on because I have witnessed his editing style for several months, I feel there is a level of integrity there, and I figured he would know many more people to bring this issue up to.75.214.123.146 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing seems pretty fishy if you ask me. Not the IP but the fact that people are getting payed to "edit" wikipedia. Couldnt we just remove the bias if we wanted to?--Coldplay Expért 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he seems to be telling the truth. I lost the link, but I know there is a page out there where you can plug in the page, and suspicious IPs come up. That might be worth a try, but for now, I wonder if we can get usernames of those who edited, as this has the potential for scandal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True. This probably is a scandal (of some sort). Can the IP tell us anything else before we continue?--Coldplay Expért 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He could also e-mail us his username since this is all anonymous. I can't see any harm in that being done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True....perhaps we should notify the IP.--Coldplay Expért 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

← Can e-mail me if he wants. Contact information is here. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you get anything, share it with an administrator who would likely care about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Any admins willing to be e-mailed? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is being encountered here is a form of astroturfing: a manufactured opinion that is passed off as a popular one. Lots of corporations & special interest groups do it; Microsoft simply gets caught doing it more often than other computer-related companies. (Not that this makes MS any better than the rest; they simply aren't quite as amoral & skilled as some of the other companies are.) Obviously this specific issue needs to be investigated & fixed, but unfortunately this won't be the last time this kind of stuff will happen here, no matter how this specific incident is handled. --llywrch (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please understand my need to remain anonymous. The purpose of mentioning MW2 was only for an example. The problem is much greater than that specific issue. I only cited it cause squelching dissent against the game went over very well there. There are hundreds and thousands more examples though. I was trying to make one point in particular about the reviews that are commonly accepted on this system: Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes are on every video game and movie possible. When other reviews are listed, they are merely subsidiaries of the larger companies that own the entire review industry, save for a few independent sources, which is what Misplaced Pages should have more of. Lacking independent sources is what allows Misplaced Pages to become a marketing machine. Please consider who owns the newspapers and media companies that "review" the products. I am thinking in far more grand terms than just MW2 investigations: I am attempting to draw debate on the currently accepted practices in the Misplaced Pages machine. I'll try another example: If you are watching ABC News one evening and a review for a Buena Vista movie (Disney) is on the air, it's full of lies that must be told under contract. If you read the Wall Street Journal and it mentions anything about a FSLP movie, you can bet the same since Fox is owned by the same company. If you see a GE commercial, know that it owns NBC (though perhaps not for long), or if you see a CBS review for an MTV films the same problem occurs. Watch reviews from say Siskel and Ebert from fifteen years ago, then compare some films with changed ratings (on further contemplation he might say) where the opinions of the movie changed. This is primarily due to ownership changes, as you will get fired for refusing to lie. I know this for a fact. The industry is saturated with owned reviews, and Misplaced Pages has become another outlet to support this system. In the long run my goal here is to bring awareness to the issue and hopefully with consent of the majority of users, eliminate advertising on Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.180.96 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that Misplaced Pages is not the place for advertisement. We could go through every article and neuter it completely, but then it will lose half its information. If you could provide us a list or something so that we could further investigate this, it would be a godsend. Otherwise our hands are tied, as we can't figure out who is adding this material to the site. I can see that you are maybe a handful of people out there who has come clean on this, and for that I commend you. I am willing to be sent information on your username because it will greatly help our investigation. Thank you for caring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you e-mail us something, it is utterly confidential. We cannot reveal it in a public area. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet vandalism again

User:InkHeart (banned for abusing multiple accounts) is back again, this time using the sockpuppet anon Special:Contributions/99.253.86.157 to again remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

She is back again using Special:Contributions/66.199.237.22, this time reverting to an old version of a page that a consensus of editors on the talk page had disagreed with. Ωphois 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And with Special:Contributions/72.11.138.91 to remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As part of this, I would like to request that Han Hyo-joo‎, Lee Da Hae‎, and Lee Jun Ki‎ be permanently semi-protected. InkHeart has been a problem for months, and has continuously switched IP addresses to avoid blocks. Ωphois 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And following her MO, InkHeart has repeatedly attempted to remove this report. Ωphois 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY 07:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the files in question to a smaller size as the template called for and added {{Non-free reduced}}. I almost expect another edit-war when the block expires, possibly earlier. Both Ωphois and myself will keep an eye on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User: BQZip01

Hi all. It has come to my attention that BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) have been in a dispute over the copyright statuses of files File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As some of you might be aware, this dispute has been going on for some time now; it has resulted in several WP:ANI threads and nearly a year's worth of slow motion edit warring at File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As an uninvolved user, this dispute came to my attention with the posting of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy on the Administrator's noticeboard. I looked into it and had to agree with Hammersoft that the files were non-free content. Noting that the on going discussions regarding this topic were producing nothing but more tension and hot air, I marked the most recent relevant ANI discussion and discussion at File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as closed. However, this did not settle well with BQZip01 (talk · contribs). He has repeatedly asked to create a WP:RFC to discuss further should he wish to but he has completley ignored those requests. To date, he has been repeatedly reopening the archived discussions , , , , , to make accusatory statements, distuptive comments, personal attacks, and troll, only to be reverted by other uninvolved users. Since those tactics have been unsuccessful, he has resorted to accusing User:Hammersoft and users who have reverted his reopening of discussions as sockpuppeteers (see , , ). Once again, he was not successful. BQZip01 is now trolling on my talk page here, here, and here, as well as removing/refactoring other users' posts. This disruptive behavior needs to stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not drama monger. BQZip01 needs to be reminded that he is not above Misplaced Pages's policies and free to harass users he disagrees with. I am requesting that another uninvolved sysop review the situation and block/warn BQZip01 as necessary. Thanks for reading. Regards, FASTILY 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a partial aside, should other images that BQZip01 has fought to claim that they are PD-text (several other University sports teams symbols, not limited to those that were added to the userbox templates, all of which are here) be investigated? I know that I had reservations with File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg being determined as "PD-text", but I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter."

If by that you mean that it was handled in a rational manner with lots of evidence, thank you. If you mean it to demean my contributions and that of others, don't be vague and accuse me of something when, in fact, I did nothing wrong (WP:PROVEIT). — BQZip01 —  06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your threshhold for originality is much lower than everyone else's. You and your supporters simply said "That is just a U, and because it is just a U it cannot be copyrighted", when the University of Miami "U" symbol can certainly not be emulated in any typeface I am aware of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you below. — BQZip01 —  06:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I have a valid concern and, instead of discussing it, an admin just trusts a new IP ("strangely" well-versed in WP policy, edit summaries, etc) over a user with thousands of edits and assumes I'm to blame for "drama" and accuses me of being a troll without discussing any merits of the issue. The admin then decides my questions aren't worthy of any discussion and deletes them! When I ask about this, he ignores me.

I have a valid, rational point. I provide LOTS of proof that my point is valid. His response is "no" with no explanation and makes reversions. Then he makes these baseless/skewed accusations here twisting normal conversation and requests for clarification into villainy.

I have made no personal attacks of any kind. Accusing me of something while providing no evidence is a bit hostile and misleading.

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: , and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

I've never called someone's points "tension and hot air". I've contributed LOTS to this encyclopedia and I find his dismissal of my contributions as being worthless completely baseless!!! It is also quite hostile; not the behavior I'd expect from an admin

Fastily has decided that all of Hammersoft's assettions are 100% true and not worthy of actually checking. For the record HS stated this issue with the WV image was ongoing for a year. This is false: It has been ongoing for three months.

I indeed have been asked "to create an WP:RFC to discuss further" but I have not ignored it. I have stated that the image talk page should be used first as dictated by WP:TALK. If no one is willing to discuss it on the image page or their talk pages, why would I expect them to discuss it in an RfC. I have also asked Hammersoft to start RfCs, but he has also chosen not to do so. This is misleading and demonizing appropriate behavior.

At least three other users agree with me regarding this image, so my point is, at least, not unreasonable and has support. Asking for clarification from and admin and getting a request for a block is completely inappropriate! — BQZip01 —  06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making a new section as asked on the talk page, so I am not sure why his comment is being removed and the archive template is being added back. User:Zscout370 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The archived template should remain however. It'd be much appreciated if you could restore that. Thanks! -FASTILY 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Fastily just get to decide when discussion is over (we talked about the issue for all of 2 days)? Where is the policy that guides this? — BQZip01 —  06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but I added that new section you wrote, so the discussion can continue. Also, Ryulong, come speak to me on IRC about the U of Miami logo. User:Zscout370 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it to be a little disingenuous to discuss things off-wiki. However, as long as it isn't hidden and I can get a copy of the discussion, it's still within the realm of "acceptable" to me. — BQZip01 —  06:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything you are going to hash out below with him is the same I will hash out with him. Also, I will explain my actions on why I am even doing the logos in SVG. User:Zscout370 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — BQZip01 —  06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Miami logo

They are not my standards but that of US law:

"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."

It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)."

The United States Copyright Office' sets forth:

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... "

I concur that, if the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, it is copyrightable, however, I do not see how this is the case here. What part of this logo can be separated? What is artistic that is not utilitarian. I certainly agree that there is stylistic design involved, but US courts have ruled that that style alone in a typeface isn't eligible for copyright. Excerpts from (mentioned yesterday in the WP:ANI thread):

The rejection of functional or utilitarian articles from protection as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” is found in 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). That section states: “...the design of a useful article...shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

A letter, no matter how elegantly designed, standing alone, is simply a building block for larger units, words, that convey information. In the same way, when we give copyright protection to the design of buildings, we do not protect individual bricks because they are fungible.

Although a typeface may be a work of applied art, copyright protection would only extend to artistic aspects of its form, not its utilitarian attributes. If the artistic attributes are de minimis or not severable from the functional aspects, they will not be copyrightable

if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration.

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

This "U" image is in distinct contrast with the Washington State University logo or this ASCII art in which letters are used as a medium to form other art.

Under these definitions, the "U" is a "U" and cannot be separated from its "intrinsic utilitarian function" of being a "U". Accordingly, it isn't eligible for copyright. Given that Misplaced Pages chooses not to distinguish between images ineligible for copyright and trademarked images ineligible for copyright, there isn't a different template available and this is the most accurate as it does mention the Misplaced Pages trademark disclaimer which covers the use of this logo. — BQZip01 —  06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more than a "U" in question for this image. It consists of two non-standard geometric shapes of two different colors surrounded by a white border that encompasses the "U" shape. The form this takes is not a U in any type face and can certainly not be emulated by any one. The intensive visual identity campaign and guidelines the University has produced (found here) shows that thought and some sort of legal control has gone into effect over this symbol. Just because it is used as the letter U does not mean that some sort of creative thought went into the design of the U symbol, as much as it was into the "WV" for West Virginia. It is not merely a typeface, and it is most certainly unique enough to be more than merely a variation on the English/Latin letter U.

In short, your interpretation of the copyright law is flawed in this instance and the University of Miami's athletic logo, which they never refer to as a "U" in the manual I linked above but as "The University of Miami logo ("U")", is not a mere typeface and cannot be a public domain text logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...by which they do refer to it as a "U". They certainly don't refer to it as two weird shapes that just happen to form a "U". No one is saying that creativity wasn't involved in the logo's creation, but, as mentioned above, that creativity is inextricably linked to the utility of the letter. — BQZip01 —  08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's "utility" is as a logo representing the school, which the school owns "all rights, title, and interest in and to...which includes trademarks, service marks, trade names, designs, logos, seals, and symbols." Just because it is made to resemble the letter U does not automatically remove any possible copyright the school may have on the imagery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is copyright protection mentioned. Additionally, it doesn't just "resemble" the letter "U", it IS the letter U and is used as such in marketing campaigns:

For my involvement with the U of Miami image, I just changed the colors to what that manual Ryulong points out has. Honestly, while I tend to believe that some element of work has gone into these symbols, a lot of times I went to the Commons and deleted stuff only to have it return again because someone on the Commons called it simple enough. Same with the WVU logo; I took the SVG file from official college documents. I carried over the rationales for fair use to the new image, because I sometimes think a lot of the GIF files for these logos are utter crap. I took the colors from official documents and put it on here. It was BQZ that placed the image into the public domain because of the whole typeface issue. I know there is a lot of colleges that put a lot of work in their images, and these documents say so. I remember looking at the documents today for the University of Alabama (a logo BQZ believes is PD) and the university claims copyright on everything they touch. User:Zscout370 07:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim of copyright? I'd like to see it. — BQZip01 —  08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your inbox. User:Zscout370 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind of surprised at the language. I'd also be interested in the "redacted" comment unless that is part of the IRC thing. — BQZip01 —  09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While the University of Miami does have a trademarked logo (registration number 1922571), that colored "U" isn't it. The trademarked logo is a completely different design, with the words "University of" above "Miami" in larger letters, with a big black bar below. The University's seal is also trademarked. But the big "U" isn't registered. Probably because it's not unique enough as a standalone graphic. Not that this matters for Misplaced Pages. It's permissible to use a trademarked logo to refer to the organization or brand using said logo, but not for other purposes, and WP:LOGO reflects this. So what's the problem? --John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Us having the logo is not the issue; the logo being either PD or Fair use is the main issue. User:Zscout370 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Zscout, but I also note that Nagle never once used the word "copyrighted". — BQZip01 —  08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why too is that after 1978, copyright is automatic and does not have to be asserted as much than in the past. The University, among others, assumes that everyone knows it is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...but that assumes it is eligible for copyright protection in the first place. — BQZip01 —  08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have the documents User BillTunnel (or Tunell, not sure about his last name) sent about copyright laws and simple designs. I will need to look at it again and see what logos are talked about and figure something out. It is almost 4 am, I need to say おやすみなさい。 User:Zscout370 09:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• This dispute has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of rising above the level of pantomime (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't). One thing that BQZip01 should know is that in matters of copyright it is up to the person claiming public domain to prove it. And yes, logo styles based on letters absolutely can be copyright, the law prevents you from asserting copyright over your company name written in a given typeface but there is more than juta typeface involved in most of these cases, as I believe you've been told before. The threshold of originality is pretty low for copyright and I would be very surprised if File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg did not qualify as it incorporates elements over and above a simple typeface (two separate colours, the split in the loop of the U). The two halves of the U do not qualify as "simple geometric shapes". So unless you have an independent source that the image is in the public domain you'll need to write a fair use rationale, which will be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Guy, the "split" is merely the point at which the white begins and the green/orange end and such coloring is explicitly mentioned as something that does NOT make something eligible for copyright protection:

  "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... "

  — BQZip01 —  07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

References

1. U.S. Code Congr. & Admn. News, 94th Congress, 2d Sess. (1976) at 5668
2. Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 1978)
3. United States Copyright Office: What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
4. United States Copyright Office: What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Something that should be addressed

While looking over this discussion, I clicked on the WVU logo and seen this was linked to this page. That page is ripe with trademarked (as the page rightly says) images the user has uploaded. I did this one and got in big trouble. I have nom'd the page for deletion here. I think User:BQZip01 should be admonished for putting trademarked images on a userpage like that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

images the user has uploaded. Not quite true; a lot of the images being displayed on that page are not from him, but me taking logos from official college documents. User:Zscout370 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And some are hosted on the Commons, like the Texas Tech logo. User:Zscout370 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, userspace is not where you "display" images. You want to show off what you have uploaded, or a list of images, show them in the ] format. Using fair-use and trademarked images on a userpage is not necessary and against the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And which "rule" might that be? I'm not aware of one. — BQZip01 —  09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not appreciating your tone right now, so you can lose it. Right now we are trying to figure out which rule that is, as no one seems to be able to find it (oddly). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The only rule we have on images is explained at NFCC 9, where copyrighted images are limited to the article space. There is nothing about trademarked images in there; it also said that images must be inlined if they are not free. So, the main solution is to use extra colons and inline all of the images. User:Zscout370 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Zscout370, I knew someone would finally find the rule I was looking for. If BQZip01 will inline his images, I will gladly withdraw my MfD on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 applies to non-free/copyrighted images, not these. I am sorry you don't like it, but I see no valid reason to remove them. — BQZip01 —  16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again with the attitude. What do you think a trademark is, it is a copyright. All images we use have a copyright on them. Just because they are on Misplaced Pages doesn't null and void that copyright. The copyright is owned by the respective university or college. You have a "show off" page of what you and whoever else have uploaded. The excuse that you use them for "ease of use" is bull. Inline, or I will do it for you. See, we both can use attitude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A trademark is not a copyright, it's similar but it's not the same. Powergate92Talk 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to what powergate said. — BQZip01 —  07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is still not free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the issue of this subthread, Ryulong. I think you've made your opinion on the other image abundantly clear. — BQZip01 —  07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a very important fact. Even if these images cannot be copyrighted, they are still trademarked and essentially non-free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that is a different assertion than what you have made in the past. The problem is that trademarks do not ever expire as long as they are maintained. Like patents, they enter the public domain as soon as they are created/registered, but there are still restrictions on their use. I can look up any patent, but I cannot produce any patented device, process, chemical, etc in any way that impinges on their ability to make a profit on it. This is analogous to the use of a trademark and appropriate use is best spelled out in WP:Disclaimers#Trademarks.

I really appreciate the fact you've made the all-important distinction and we should have a policy on such images to reduce the number of problems associated with such images, but simply applying WP:NFCC to them fails to recognize the distinction between copyright and trademark protections. Would you be willing to work on a policy with me to 1) distinguish what is copyrightable and what is not and 2) how to use such images? — BQZip01 —  08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Wikimedia Commons says about trademark images "Trademark laws control the commercial use of logos, terms, and names related to products and services. Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement." Powergate92Talk 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska ET and NBC

Is anybody aware of Nebraska_Educational_Telecommunications#Television? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am now, but that has nothing to do with the images in question. That case was a logo used by one entity who did not own the rights claiming it was theirs in the first place. Whether the image was copyrighted and/or trademarked is irrelevant as that kind of use is prohibited under both copyright and trademark law. — BQZip01 —  07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NBC claimed to own the logo which they did not own. Woogee (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, though I'm sure the outcome of the agreement was that neither side acknowledged anything. There is no parallel that really seems to apply here, though, or am I missing something? — BQZip01 —  08:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal letter from Behringer

I understand from Misplaced Pages:No legal threats that editors are supposed to report legal threats on this page. Behringer sent me a legal threat. By mailings directed to my home address and to the addresses of three of my sometime employers, I have received a demand that I cease and desist from editing the Behringer page, except that I immediately remove all negative text from the article. This demand came from Behringer North America Legal Counsel EdatBehringer, dated December 22, 2009. Because of holiday travels, I didn't see the letter until December 27. I understand further that an editor such as EdatBehringer who initiates a legal threat will typically be blocked while the dispute is outstanding. Binksternet (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• If a "cease-and-desist" letter has been sent against a Misplaced Pages editor with the idea of restricting their normal Misplaced Pages activity, then that is squarely covered by the WP:NLT policy disallowing editing while the dispute progresses. I will wait a bit for input from other administrators (EdatBehringer has not edited for four weeks, so there is no rush), but if the description of what happened is true, then an indefinitie block is certainly appropriate. I am also disturbed by the fact that the username "EdatBehringer" indicates a connection with the company, and that the account has been used to try to get rid of a section critical of the company, creating a conflict of interest possibility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (As a side, how did they get your home address and employer-contacts? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
    • This seems to be a WP:OWN issue. Behringer do not own the article about their company. They have no say whatsoever over what goes into the article and what is kept out. There is no "Biography of Living Companies" policy either. If Behringer haven't done anything negative, then we don't put in anything negative. If they have, and it is verifiable by reliable, third-party sources, it can (and should) be included in the article. I see no reason why EdatBehringer (talk · contribs) shouldn't be indeffed now. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would caution that, while we should AGF of Binksternet, we must be certain that such a threat has been made before sanctioning the EdatBehringer account. Perhaps if Binksternet could forward the email to another editor for confirmation? I would be such a recipient, but I am about to be unavailable for a few hours. Is there any other editor (or pref an admin, who can then act accordingly when the threat is confirmed) who will act as a reviewer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would be better sent to one of the crats IMHO, with an explanation and link to this thread. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Why a crat, exactly? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to go to a crat, crats have no special standing in regard to this type of thing, it just needs to be sent to an admin. Binksternet, can you email a copy of it to an admin? If you don't have a trusted admin you can send it to, I'd be willing to receive it and I can also recommend LessHeard as an admin worthy of trust. Also, Binksternet, are you saying the letter was signed with the words "User:EdatBehringer"? Sarah 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly NLT remains policy; I see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Behringer -- apparently the section on trademark charges is the issue. As far as i can tell, it is not alleged on the article talk p. that the contents is false, but rather that is is not proportionate weight. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of EdatBehringer (talk · contribs) is rather curious. As soon as the editor creates the account, they remove the "Trademark claims" section of the article and immediacy file a mediation request against Binksternet (talk · contribs) without even discussing the issue with Binksternet or other editors first. There are also a number of other single purpose accounts that have edited the article, such as Hohan22 (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs), Guitarman987 (talk · contribs), CGspeaks (talk · contribs), Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs), and 203.215.73.180 (talk). A couple of these accounts have self-identified themselves as being employed by Behringer. I would suggest that a checkuser may be in order on these SPAs. Eqdynamics (talk · contribs) is another SPA that appears to have attempted to WP:OUT Binksternet. —Farix (t | c) 15:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this a bit further and entirely outside the issue of the legal threat, I've blocked some of these accounts for disruptive editing. The accounts I've blocked are EdatBehringer (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs) and Eqdynamics (talk · contribs). Eqdynamics hasn't been used since October but it was being used in a very disruptive way and some of his edits had to be oversighted for attempting to out Binksternet. I'm going to go and leave them notes on their talk pages now, but also of interest is the account Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs) whose last edit back in July was to claim that he lost his job at Behringer because he refused to assist in sanitising the article. Regardless of the whole legal threat issue, I think this needs to be dealt with on the basis of disruptive editing as they're clearly trying to control that article. Sarah 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block the accounts and leave a note on their talk pages referring them to info-en-q@wikimedia.org where the volunteers will patiently explain to them why apparently well-sourced material does not get excluded without a pressing reason founded in policy. Legal letters should be referred to the Foundation as well. Editors in receipt of legal letters should email user:Mike Godwin if they are worried, and in general are best advised to walk away and leave it to someone else. We can usually find an editor on another continent who can do the needful. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, JzG, I will email Godwin with a scan of the letter, even though one paragraph of it begins "Please be further advised that this letter is copyrighted, and you not authorized to republish this in any manner."
• Sarah, the letter is not signed "EdatBehringer", it is signed with the first name Ed, last name withheld by me here so that I don't "out" him, and Ed in the letter identifies himself as Behringer North America Legal Counsel. The phrasing and tone of the letter compared to that of EdatBehringer makes me conclude that the two Eds are the same person. I have no other proof.
• Seb az86556, somebody at Behringer dug around online and found out who I am, and tried to out me. It is not very difficult, as my username here relates in a certain way to my email address and business name, and I have plainly stated on my user page and elsewhere what it is that I do for a living—audio engineering. The letter was addressed to a home that I last lived at in 2002, so the people at Behringer were not able to locate me until they gave that old address to United Parcel Service who looked up the name and made an educated (and correct) guess about where I live now. The three sometime employers of mine that they contacted are listed (with others) on my business website.
• Thanks for the discussion and advice, folks. I will contact Godwin now. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

when I see things like this, I always wonder whether the people who try to suppress the material realize that their efforts have now become a matter of permanent record on probably the most prominent possible place on the internet. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the attempt to claim copyright, so it may not be reproduced without permission, on a threat of legal action... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would take any off-line legal threats seriously. I think disengaging at this point would be wise Bink. Other parties seem to be keeping an eye on it at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Disengage, block the accounts, and refer the users to OTRS. The OTRS volunteers are fairly good at handling this sort of crap. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wknight94's deletion of guideline material to sabotage an RFC about compliance with it

I've opened an WP:RFC on a long unresolved (though somewhat dormant) dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people), in an effort to depersonalize the issue and let the community decide. This is a normal (and in fact preferred) means of dispute resolution instead of continued pointless argumentation. (I've been savaged for it anyway, with ad hominem rants and blatant mischaracterizations of my position and of the facts, but oh well, my skin's thick, and Wikipedians will likely come to the proper conclusion at the end of the RFC, or we wouldn't trust RFCs). The problem is that Wknight94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an opposing party in the RFC, is now deleting , over objection and clearly explained revert, the material in the guideline that the RFC pertains to and he disagrees with. It is a fait accompli action which would render the RFC moot and meaningless, as its very topic is his project's noncompliance with the deleted material! This is guideline wording that has been completely stable, word-for-word, for over a year and should not be deleted without discussion and consensus at all, much less to improperly influence an RFC, regardless of the merits of either major side of the RFC debate. Wknight94 has subsequently struck the main point of the RFC and is seeking to have the RFC closed. This is a farcical sabotaging of dispute resolution and consensus building.

The wording at WP:NCP needs to be restored at least until the RFC is over, and this under-watchlisted guideline should be watched for further changes of this sort. I have not reverted it myself any further, because I would eventually trip over WP:3RR if I keep attempting to deal personally with the double-teaming deletions of Wknight94 and Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my other most vocal opponent on the issue, and one who abused his admin authority by threatening me on my talk page with a block if I reverted him again) at both NCP and at the closely related Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) proposal also at issue in the RFC (and where everything I've done in months has been reverted by one of these two editors or the other, including removal of dispute tags to deny any dispute, and reversion of minor edits simply because they're mine). This seems to me an overly proprietary attitude toward the material in question, indeed the entire topic. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ  Contribs.

without any particular view at this point on the actual issue, and no great interest in sportspeople in any case, the removal of a key paragraph with the edit comment "(Remove bit that was unilaterally forced in by SMcCandish back in August/September 2008. The community finally acquiesced to his/her wish to keep the peace, but it's still not necessary.)" and then the repeated removal after it has been restored, does seem inappropriate--BRD can justify the removal, but certainly not a second removal when there is ongoign discussion. DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Edit wars over naming conventions are some of the lamest disputes we have, however removing something to gain an advantage in a dispute claiming that it was "unilaterally forced in" a year ago is also clearly unacceptable. Having stood for over a year he will need to get consensus for changing it. A much better use of your time would be merging Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (baseball players) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) back to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people), this degree of specificity is hard to see as anything other than process creep. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) have been reverted there because there was consensus on the talk page there for the wording that was being proposed. Don't act like the victim when it is you that is trying to do everything you can to sway an Rfc which has gone against you in the past and seems to be going against you again. If you can't see that you are a one man army trying to fight against consensus you probably never will. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

the rfc seems to have received relatively little attention--since the position of the current parties seem entrenched, we needs to see what does represent the more general consensus. RFCs are supposed to do thaat, but they seem sometimes not to get the necessary viewing by those oustside the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, and the page that I referred to is a different page from that which the rfc was on and was being reverted back to the original as per WP:BRD. He was acting out of process by continuing to revert to his preferred version, especially when as you say there is an Rfc going on. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I flagged particular passages as disputed, and was actively disputing them on the talk page. You tried to deny the dispute then threatened to block me for defying you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ  Contribs. 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it's Process Wonking Day, is it? So be it. There is now a proper proposal at the page in question. Enjoy. Wknight94 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• And let's not have more process than we need. So, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Guy (Help!) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's also noteworthy that in both the RFC discussion and the new proposal that Wknight94 clearly stateshere] that the language being deleted by him from the guideline was "forced" (his word) on me by him and other parties on his side of the dispute. He then turns this on its head, e.g. in the quoted edit summary above, when it suits him. Djsasso: Agreement on the part of one side of a dispute is a given (otherwise they would not be that one side of the dispute). That does not mean that consensus has been reached, except among the people on that half of the debate, whom we all already take to have consensus amongst each other. I also note that Djsasso is making a habit of equating his personal views with "consensus" (cf. the threat, diff'd above, that he posted to my talk page; my reverts against "consensus" that he refers to were actually reverts of him deleting my inline dispute tag from passages I was in fact actively and quite specifically disputing on the talk page). Re: DGG's comment on needing more eyes on the topic: Yep! That was the entire point of the RFC. This debate has not involved much of anyone but the original participants in it, whose opinions on both sides have not budged, in over a year. And almost all are from 2 or 3 projects (baseball and ice hockey, maybe football). Not other sports topics, not non-sports topics. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ  Contribs.

You might want to read the talk page of the page then if you think that this consensus I am referring to is just me. There were numerous editors who endorsed the specific wording used on the page, and no one but yourself opposing it. Please explain to me how that is not consensus? The Rfc currently has many people who aren't active in any of the projects you quote, and are also all endorsing the view opposite of your own. As many people have asked you already, Are you sure this is a quest you want to waste your time on when no one except a lone IP seems to support your views? It would be nice you also would tone down your ad hominem attacks that you keep making on many editors. Discuss the issue not the editors. -DJSasso (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin welcomed at Negroni

It came to my attention that an old and long revert-war on the article about the cocktail named Negroni was revived this month. Editors have been disputing who created the drink:

• 24 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 says General Pascal created the drink ;
• 24 Oct 2009 - User:Chromatikoma says Camilo Negroni created it ;
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to the General Pascal version ;
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:188.221.168.112 reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to General Pascal version ;
• 26 Oct 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 creates a Pascal/Camilo merged version ;
• 14 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to General Pascal version ;
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Hectorgaspar reverts to the Marine's merged version ;
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version ;
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Hanegroni reverts to the Marine's merged version ;
• 17 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 23 Dec 2009 - User:71.178.237.197 reverts to the Marine's merged version ;
• 24 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;
• 26 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version ;
• 27 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version ;

At this point, Marine reverted to his own version, protected his version and started a discussion on the talk page explaining why he believed his version was the right one.

I'm not sure this was an wise use of his admin bit. Maybe some uninvolved admin should step in and assume the role of neutral arbitrator. --Damiens.rf 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The admin that has stepped in here has done everything he can to help out this discussion. He protected the page to avoid another edit war and is waiting concensus. There is no problem with this happening. --MWOAP (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One could easily make the argument that this admin has used the tools to protect "his" version of the page, but it appears to me (if that list is exhaustive) that he's been a very minor participant in the goings on and is trying to gain consensus without allowing the edit war to descend any further. However, an uninvolved admin should probably review the decision since even the appearance of impropriety could lead to discussion on the talk page deteriorating into a criticism of the action, rather than an attempt to establish consensus on the content of the page itself. HJMitchell You rang? 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NJMitchell is right about which version of the article the admin protected. Admins always protect The Wrong Version. –MuZemike 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll note positively that Marine immediately requested review of his actions on the EW page , but has received no response (likely because it wasn't the best place to ask for it.) I would agree that reverting to "his" version before protecting wasn't appropriate, especially as the concern about the reliability of the sources expressed on the talkpage used is quite legitimate.(see also this post-hoc discussion --Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the edits in favor of Pascal are being made by three editors, two of which are descendants of Pascal Negroni, and the other is the admin which has protected the page. The admin is involved at the direct request of one of the descendants, and the admin is also the creator of the article for Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as well as one of the two brothers Héctor Andrés Negroni that are editing the article. The admin denies COI. Thanks for taking a look at this, I just want to bring the quality of the article up to speed. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to revert to his preferred version before "protecting to avoid another edit war". Again, as said, I have no opinion about which version is better (if any), what is not material to this thread. --Damiens.rf 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think Marine was exactly right in what he did. The dispute was over "Fact A" versus "Fact B". Marine's so-called "version" did not take a stance, it merely made equal mention of both theories A and B, along with the accompanying citations. This is the best and only way to avoid protecting "The Wrong Version". Whether one of the editors requested admin intervention, and whatever relationship that editor has with the subject matter, is irrelevant. Me Three (talk to me) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have been trying to say. The admin that protected it could not revert it back to a version that had not been part of this edit war because there was new information between those revisions. --MWOAP (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Marine's version, although arguably the most diplomatic one, was proposed on October 26, and had been reverted back and forth seven times at the time he reverted it back to his own version and protected. You may agree his version is better or worse, but this should not imply agreeing with his using of adming tool in the case.

To lessen the drama, I recall you all I just asked for an outside admin overview/arbitration to avoid the decision being made by an involved admin. --Damiens.rf 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be best for another admin to review the decision, but I don't think that his revision was necessarily bad, and I think that he did the sensible thing. If he had protected a revision which presented only one viewpoint, someone would complain about him being biased.  fetchcomms☛ 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As of my understanding, protections should be done blindly. Choosing one version before protecting is a bad decision even for an uninvolved admin (let alone for the author of the version). Being an admin does not imply you can not start a request for page protection. --Damiens.rf 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you have stated multiple times that you are requesting arbitration, if you want this, please file it at WP:ArbReq. This decision could not have been made blindly. The admin went back, found the issue, made a neutral viewpoint and protected it. As a general rule, yes i could see it. But this case is the exception. --MWOAP (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe this is not the place, but I wonder if Damiens knows about WP:WIKIHOUNDING? After mass nominating several images from Tony the Marine, where some of the discussions turned personal 1, he suddenly appears here, Tony created an article and guess who shows in the article? Damiens (he also nominated the image for deletion}, today he started this discussion and also nominated one of Tony's article for deletion Somebody should closely monitor Damiens contributions. --Jmundo (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - From the very beginning I had requested the help and opinions of administrators and uninvolved parties here. This is not about who invented the drink. What I want is for an uninvolved administrator to determine in case such as this, where there are allegations of two reputed inventors of the drink, if it is proper to post the names of the two in the article or not, that is all. I will abide by whatever is determined by an administrator knowledgeable in the subject. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that you wanted for an admin to review the protection, not the info.  fetchcomms☛ 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've been attempting to resolve this from the beginning. My one sticking point, I just want reliable sources WP:V WP:RS for the claim. I would like to push the Negroni article to a point where it might be considered for a FA. Without reliable sources, this will never happen. I posted some comments on the talk page in November and mentioned in the change comment questioning the reliability of the sources that you and the two brothers Negroni insist on pushing. Then I posted a RfC , which has also gotten zero response. I also asked the various wikiprojects involved to take a look at it. I would love for a uninvolved party to take a look at this! Moreover, I would request that Tony unprotect the page and provide a reliable source for the claim he has made. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that both the protection and the content need to be reviewed. Should we take this to arbitration since there is no neutral admin to take this, that way we also get community concensus? --MWOAP (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need reliable sources, but I'm confused now as to what this thread is for. Is it for verification of info, in which case a non-admin could easily find, or is it for another admin to review whether the protection was correct? It now seems that the request is for an admin to review the info and for the page to be unprotected to add the sources, both which cases can be resolved without arbitration. If the topic isn't about whether the protection was correct, this thread could be closed pretty fast.  fetchcomms☛ 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment-User:Chromatikoma, made a request that I unprotect the page. To which I answered the following:

"Look Chromatikoma, you know that I honestly do not have anything against you. The problem is that I believe that the unprotection of the article will escalate into an edit war, but tell you what, if another admin. does not determine the proper course to take in 24 hours, then I will take it upon myself to unprotect the article and stay out of the situation, even if there is an edit war. Does that sound reasonable?"

A quick search in google (disregard Wiki) Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as one of the possible inventors of the drink. Any comments? Tony the Marine (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- here's a comment: if you can identify any of those web results as satisfying WP:RS, then go ahead and use them. Otherwise you have no business restoring poorly sourced material and using admin tools to protect the version you appear to favor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Forked and back to the original ANI topic, please? Protecting a version you personally have created will raise eyebrows, but in and of itself isn't a violation of anything. Neither is a page being protected after it has been put back to a "pre-war" state... this is good. Combine all of it together? I can't think of policy that points to this, but I don't think anyone will deny it was a mysteriously convenient use of admin tools at that very moment for some reason. We always assume good faith, and if the admin's version was actually the last one without significant contention for a length of time it might well be the right call. A conflict of interest? Well, yes, which would be why an admin-minded person would go out of his/her way to pick just some different version as some proof that there's no WP:OWN to be concerned with. Actually, incidents like this are one of the more common "misuse" examples. If an admin is even remotely involved in a disputed article or editor discussion (or any user, for that matter)... even if they feel compelled to act that very instant it's encouraged they go seek an ex post facto justification just as confirmation. There's scant a day that goes by without at least a few requests on pretty much every noticeboard of an admin saying "need admin to check... xxxxxx" because it's the ethical thing to do. There are reasonable exceptions (not saying either way, in this case), but even on non-controversial self-protections I've seen some admins come in and apologize for just that... even, say, vandalism on his/her userpage. cont.

HOWEVER, the fact the admin originally came in as a third-party helper for the article as they say above? We're picking on a good faith editor doing a random cleanup request? Good grief. These would be editors that rank extremely low on any "risk level" scale-- I mean they're choosing to spend their free time cleaning up a random edit war mess. That makes 95% of this entirely moot. imo, just open the article and have future civility, warring, NPA and RPP issues sent through the normal channels now. No more rouge vibes from anyone, please. I could ask questions all night, but an ANI should stay on topic. ANI is not for content disputes like sources like have been dug into recently above... generic review and application of policy to odd situations is a more reasonable scope (which is how this started). Oh-- for a comparison, an example of my hacking away at an article to find "neutral" as a base for people to start editing from equally would be this page history, having spotted the article as listed for a rewrite with concerns for a corporate COI and advert tone vs CSD or PROD. I even point out in an edit summary which version I consider to be my "done" on cleanup and a reference version if things start off on the wrong foot (erm, again?). In theory, a parallel universe me would have done the exact same thing on that article of reverting to my own edit having been "clean" after a specific request to have it looked over for corporate cruft. Parallel me would still have gone to RPP unless the warring was violent and continuous at the same, but that being the only difference. I started out questioning the matter, but seeing as it was someone trying to help solve article dispute by suggesting neutral ground I find it highly unlikely that this didn't start as a WP:AGF line of actions by the admin here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we could say it was neutral if and only if there were WP:RS to back up the claim. As it stands, the shady references that he has continually provided even after I questioned them, has shown he has a POV in this article. Also, the Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni prominently proclaims that he is the reputed inventor of the cocktail, using even more unreliable references. I was chided for removing the poorly sourced material there as well. This seems to signal an agenda to me, not neutrality. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My final opinion is that we unprotect the page and let everyone start edit-warring again, because that seems to resolve the arguments that:

• the content is incorrect or badly sourced

  the protection was incorrect

There's no way any of the issues will be fixed if the protection is not lifted.  fetchcomms☛ 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --MWOAP (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

• Ian Plimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are repeated insertions of blog-sourced accusations of criminal activity made by Plimer against identifiable third parties, against BLP concerns expressed by multiple editors. I think administrator intervention might be in order. --TS 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas Media is a notable media source which is independent of Plimer himself. Plimer wrote an editorial that was published in this media source. Plimer himself is notable for being skeptical of the whole AGW position. Climategate is a notable event in the whole public debate over the AGW position. As such, Plimer's opinion on Climategate is notable in it's own right. The opinion in question is critical of the CRU as an organization and mentions no one by name. BLP restrictions apply to living PEOPLE not ORGANIZATIONS. But even IF the BLP restrictions were applicable in this instance they still DO NOT restrict the inclusion of a notable individual's opinion on a notable topic when attributed as such and when publish by a third party media outlet. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"This behavior is that of criminals" is a comment about individuals, not an organisation. Behaviour applies to people. Saying that certain people are acting like criminals is a comment on people. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion on BLP noticeboard in which it seems that the consensus is that this material doesn't belong here. --TS 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is NO such consensus. Future commentary should be made there, however. --GoRight (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering at least half-a-dozen editors in that discussion believe it should be removed, and you are the only one arguing to keep, how is there no consensus? — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to Close RfC/U

Could an uninvolved editor please close Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. The discussion at the RfC/U led to an AN that was resolved with a siteban. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:John254 socks question

Sir Arthur Williams was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I posted this at User:MBisanz's talk page, also. However, the User:Sir Arthur Williams appears impatient with the matter.

Based on prior AN/I and on contributions of this user and prior sock puppet User:Kristen Eriksen and the behavior of prior sock puppet User:Andrea105 and her edit history compared to User:Sir Arthur Williams edit history, in particular how both started with the same monobook edit, moved quickly to fighting vandalism, then advanced rapidly to bot requests (Sir's, Andrea's) I suspect sock puppetry.

I'm not clear on whether a check user is necessary. The instructions on SPI's are designed for experienced users only. I'm tired of dealing with AfDs and RFBAs filed by sock puppets. It's a waste of user time. I'd rather just ABF and deal with the matter up front, then not waste my time on the AfD or RFBA and watch it all amount to nothing as the nominator is banned as a sock puppet.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect and have good enough reason, file an SPI. It's actually not too difficult - Simply go tp WP:SPI, replace "SOCKMASTER" in the right-hand box with the name of the sockmaster, and follow the instructions on the edit page. I'm not sure how successful an abuse filter would be at this. -Jeremy 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You may think that following the instructions at SPI is possible if you have never done it before, but it's not. Most wikipedia instructions for filling in templates are not followable, these being no exception. I tried. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Total nonsense in any case. Lots of users register accounts to fight vandalism, giving themselves appropriate tools to do. Lots of users file BRFAs too soon. Actually, many BRFAs are rejected simply because they are filed by users with almost no edits. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, whose alternate account are you? Not only are you very quick to edit your monobook (something I have never done - although incompetence struggles with laziness on my part), and are very familiar with WP acronyms, you speak authoritatively of the habits of new users for a few days old account. I would comment that an account seemingly as familiar with process as you should not fear SPI since it can exonerate as simply as it can condemn. When the SPI is filed you could offer to contact the CU with information on who you are/previously were; I'm sure that any innocent pushing at the boundaries of alternate account policy will be not sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read Misplaced Pages:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice essay, and not one I have seen in my four years here. Anyway, I have not said you were a sockpuppet (an abusive alternate account) but only a new contributor with knowledge of the environment that is very possibly the result of already editing within it. That is Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, a policy, that it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you never used the word "sockpuppet", but you've been dancing around it. Editors certainly need to be warned against excessive displays of Misplaced Pages proficiency too soon after account registration, it seems. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock puppet investigation of a User:John254 sock is already in the works. As the Sir Arthur Williams sock points out, his edits are very much like the pattern of editing in the User:Alison22 sock. John254 is on Christmas vacation! The Alison22 sock is busy, like other John254 socks, with AfD, but did start out with template edits, bot requests, the usual monobook edit (LessHeard vanU, monobook editing is useful, you might look into some of the John254 monobook edits for yourself), vandalism. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but have any of the accounts you're accusing of being sockpuppets actually engaged in disruption or done anything else untoward? There is no policy against the use of multiple accounts, as long as they are not used abusively if my somewhat hazy recollection of policy is correct... HJMitchell You rang? 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's called evading a community ban. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS You can find this information on the SPI, supplied by the clerk. If there is no such reason existing the clerk's at SPI reject the request. "Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion)" --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. I'll have a gander at that (more for interest than having anything useful to contribute to it). HJMitchell You rang? 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

John254 is back

Kudos to Alison and J.delanoy for their huge, immensely damaging rangeblock of all at&t DSL IPs in the entire San Francisco Bay Area . What was never considered at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/John254, however, was that I can edit right through their rangeblock. Nice try :) StephenBrown167 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And you're courteous, not making me do the AN/I post. Can we consider this notification, also? Lol. Thank you! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The pity is...

That John254 was originally a good faith and worthwhile editor, who eventually found themselves unable to accept consensus on a few matters and was tempted to sock discussions to get their viewpoint incorporated. They now seem to be lodged firmly into a bad faith mode, taunting that they can sock through attempts to block them. Like the man said, now new accounts who show more than usual familiarity with WP process are treated with suspicion - yet seem unable to comprehend that it is by their actions, and not the reaction it precipitates, that this is so. Sad, really. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Need a policy-based decision for WrestleMania 23

There is a content dispute taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning. During the course of this discussion, several policies and guidelines have been broken: WP:V, which states that publication in a reliable source, not the pursuit of truth, is the standard for inclusion; WP:NPOV, which indicates that favoring one number and dismissing the other would be point of view; WP:OWN and WP:AGF, which were violated when warnings were given to an editor ordering him to "Leave Wrestlemania 23 alone" (); WP:VANDAL, which indicates that good-faith contributions should not be classified as vandalism (and that a level 3 warning for adding information with a reliable source is inappropriate); WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which were broken when a user stated that "only a fool" would want to add the alternative number and that the problem centers on me being my "usual stubborn self" ; and WP:TPG, which was violated when one side intentionally misrepresented the other side's argument (explained at ).

I proposed that people give ideas for dispute resolution processes. Third Opinion is not possible, as there are numerous parties involved. Request for Comment has not worked with this group before, as it led to the same people making the same arguments under a different heading on the same page. I am not seeking blocks or warnings, but I gave the information above to help show that the discussion is breaking down and needs to come to an end. I am hoping that an administrator can just make a decision one way or the other: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you should use sources representing both figures. I don't think this is a decision for administrators to make, it is up to editors to achieve consensus and assume good faith. WP:RSN may be able to help. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately administrators don't have the kind of authority you seem to think they do (they don't have any real "authority" at all, just extra tools). Admins have no more say over content than an anonymous IP editor making his first edit. And this board specifically says that it's not for content disputes.

Personal attacks and incivility can result in administrator action, however, and this can be a good place to get help with such misbehavior. Ironically, what you're specifically not asking for (blocks and warnings) might ultimately be the kind of help this board can provide.

There are a number of steps to be used for dispute resolution. 3rd opinions and RfCs are only a couple of tools. Mediation might help (and I might be able to help with that myself) but it is 100% voluntary and everyone involved has to agree to it, agree to the result of the mediation, and then voluntarily abide by the decision (it's non-binding). -- Atama頭 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction, so this has been useful. I'll give WP:RSN a try. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"This article is trash" template?

Not sure what if anything should be done, but seeking a second opinion. Anyway, an IP has added the following to some articles: and . The template reads: "This article is trash. You can help Misplaced Pages by deleting it." These were added shortly after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tiger Woods (dog) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture (2nd nomination) both closed as keep. Two possible concerns: 1) is this someone from the AfDs? and 2) is it an appropriate template? Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You messed up one diff. I'll go and find it. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also, hell no, it's not an appropriate template. The AfDs also have no common users voting delete. I'm guessing it's just a moron. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that is not appropriate wording for a template, and nothing exists in the template namespace with that wording. However, the box that the IP editor was inserting does exist on several user subpages, and was probably copied from one of those or inserted using substitution. It's not familiar to me, but from the dates on the user subpages I would guess that it is something that was supposed to be funny that circulated back in 2005. --RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like ED-style trolling to me... Pcap ping 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether perchance this was brought over from Uncyclopedia? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where it came from, it is way out of line with our policies here and it should not be used on articles. If anyone sees it used on an article they should remove it as vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article mess space: user bio, COI, possible sock puppet

The Stephen J. Press article is the kind of badly written schlock that needs serious editing. However, editing this article is difficult because of the tag-teaming by a so-called buddy of the subject and the subject himself who both want to own the article.

When I looked at the user page of the primary contributor, User:Platinumphotographer I saw it was created by User:Drsjpdc, the subject of the Stephen J. Press article. Drsjpdc added information that platinum, too, just like the doctor, loves coffee, uses Mozilla firefox and a google searches.

• The doctor's contributions.
• Platinum's.
• Platinum's user page.

They also edited another article one after the other.

IMO, it matters when users use sock accounts to avoid scrutiny for COI and when they use it them to bully other editors into not editing articles.

So, BLP, COI, Sock-puppetry, where to start? The article is a BLP problem because it is badly written and looks like the insulting fluff piece it is and editing it will be hard with the "team" interfering. It's a COI problem because the subject is interfering with other editors either directly, if it's sock puppetry, or indirectly by bullying other editors. The sock-puppetry is a problem if it's being used to conceal the COI.

Would it be possible for someone, admin or editor, to look into this and see what is going on? I would like to write some insect articles for featured pictures without good places to sit, instead of seeing sock puppets everywhere any more.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should file an SPI investigation on the two accounts since someone editing an article about themself with sockpuppets is an obvious COI. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They were blocked, all is well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a good block. I can't tell from the C/U if it was based on behaviour or on an actual IP check. I disagree with the closing admin that the behaviour was obvious. I also have yet to see any diffs presented of actual sock-puppetry behaviour, owning, bullying, or COI. The BLP allegation is completely false - the article is not a "fluff piece" and it has been recently been overhauled by editors with no COI - however, more eyes of course are welcome at the article. The editor who posted this ANI thread has responded to my edits with uncivil responses and allegations of meatpuppetry, which is not a good way to resolve the issues. DigitalC (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits by other users have been reverted. The article, for example, lists an incomprehensible alphabet soup of supposed degrees. An editor suggested only his primary degree should be listed. This was reverted with a comment by one of the meat/socks that other articles had this alphabet soup. The other chiropractor articles with this alphabet soup are written by this same meat/sock army. The article looks like what it is: a fluff biography of no substance orchestrated by its subject. No one is going to come to that article and see an unbiased encyclopedic article, they're going to see self-published article with cutesy links like the uploaded pictures of the doctor's degrees from his office walls. I think that COI should read: we, at wikipedia, have a duty to save you from yourself: you can't write your autobiography here because it will look like you did; and don't send an army of friends either, because that will also look exactly like that.

Anyway, at some point someone will tell the emperor he has no clothes. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lingering AfD

This AfD was opened a couple of months ago and forgotten about. It looks like neither received the afd1 template; I just added it to the articles. Suggest marking it as "relisted" today and doing the normal routine. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. In all fairness, it should be closed 7 days from today. –MuZemike 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Freedatingservice

Freedatingservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is misusing his or her new account. This user:

• Started the user's talk page with the announcement that the user is "looking to date a transsexual person in Vancouver British Columbia". I deleted that statement.
• Posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources, of all places, that the user is "writing a best seller book and would like to hear from individuals who have a story to tell", under the heading "Transvestites,shemales and kathoies". The post was unsigned, which make one wonder how the user expected responses to be addressed. Another editor deleted that post.

This account is being used exclusively for What Misplaced Pages is not. In addition, the user name sounds like the name of a commercial business, and therefore appears to violate the Username policy. As soon as I post this, I will notify the user of this AN/I.—Finell 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They were blocked by Fran Rogers. All is well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user user:Nrcprm2026 editing again

Although I haven’t requested a IP check, I believe that user user:Nrcprm2026 is editing articles, specifically Gulf War Syndrome, in violation of his block under the following IP’s.

• 99.27.201.92 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.191.74.146 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.34.78.67 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.60.1.84 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I am not going to begin an edit war over this and am asking an administrator to special protect the article and monitor articles that the IP is frequenting. WVBluefield (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe WVBluefield is banned User:Hempbilly a/k/a User:TDC. He and Nrcprm2026 have a long history of conflict on Gulf War syndrome and are both banned. However, WVBluefield is removing several peer reviewed secondary sources and the dispute tag, while Nrcprm2026 is the only banned user to have ever taken an article to featured status while banned. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, does that mean you are Nrcprm2026? As I said on both your talk pages, take sock issues to WP:SPI, don't throw them around on various noticeboards and talk pages. tedder (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but I'm familiar with the situation. And now, WVbluefield has broken 3RR. I will try to make the appropriate reports. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 tedder (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sudden burst of foreign language articles

On WP:NPP, I've noticed a crop of articles written entirely in (I think) Korean showing up. Exx.: 유객(誘客), 거울 앞의 娼婦, 놋그릇을 씻는 여인 (there are a few more). They are not coming from the same account – at least Handsnext89 (talk · contribs) and Centermana (talk · contribs) are involved. Given that two accounts are involved, I get a sneaking suspicion that this may be a test run for some sort of spambot. Perhaps someone who knows stuff about stuff should look into it? — æk 05:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note - the articles are either nonsense or copies of existing English articles such as Paul Gauguin. NawlinWiki (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Na'vi language‎

I withdrew my nomination for the article but I am afraid more !votes may come (two have). Could somebody please close it as speedy keep? Thanks. > RUL3R_>vandalism 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done: — æk 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is another delete (Edison), so it's not technically a speedy keep, but I don't see any point in reopening it. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On WP:SK: No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination. So, being the only delete !vote is not a necessary requisite. I think it does fall under speedy keep. I still think the article should be deleted, but consensus beats personal opinion/several policies/royal straight flush. > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously not the case when a clear delete consensus has developed and then the nominator withdraws. In this case though, with only the one other delete vote, closing the discussion seems fine.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Academy 2009 01

This has probably come up before, so don't think I am dumb (I couldn't find it in the archives). What is with the users Academy 2009 01, Academy 2009 02, Academy 2009 03, etc.? Socks? Why are they all confirmed? Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on this case, but they may all be students taking a class who are editing Misplaced Pages as part of that class. There are lots of Misplaced Pages:School and university projects using Misplaced Pages editing as part of their coursework. I'd WP:AGF on these pending proof that they are being used disruptively. Indeed, having a bunch of similarly named accounts is sort of a public declaration of connecting them anyways, which is all WP:SOCK requires to be compliant; publicly declared multiple accounts run by the same person are, in most cases, perfectly fine. --Jayron32 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we block a few so that some kids will get an A and some will flunk having to say the modern version of "dog ate homework" which is "admin blocked me as a sock". :p JB50000 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could, but we would get some unblock requests like "tnx winkapieda, my mum groundd me bcoz i fialed my clas so nao im bloc from u n da outside". > RUL3R_>vandalism 07:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If I came across an unblock request like that, I would decline and inform the user to utilize the English language to formulate his/her unblock request. (Otherwise, the English Misplaced Pages is not the right Misplaced Pages for this user, assuming that AGF is universal across all Wikipedias.) –MuZemike 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, if it is formulated that way it was probably the English class he failed. > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that this happened in a university class recently. Curse those role accounts! (in the end, there were some decent article created, and it was interesting to see the reactions to the users, especially compared to WP:NEWT) tedder (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking to impact grades? Wouldn't that be a bit of a reverse pointy move?  ;) Ultimately, unless they start disrupting- or ballot-stuffing- I'm in favour of letting them be. Class projects will edit for a few days, get through, and by-and-large never think about us again until Google sends them here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This was part of Misplaced Pages:Academy/NIH 2009. And it is not funny to consider blocking users just to get amusement from the damage you will cause them in the real world. NW (Talk) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  To be fair, as long as it's only being considered, I think it could be perfectly funny ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  You are right! Idle threats aren't funny at all. To be truly hilarious, they have to be followed through! Resolute 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen in a real life talk page edit where someone seems to have purposely vandalized so that the whole school was autoblocked for 24 hours. Therefore, we have to be very careful to block carefully, thinking of all consequences. This doesn't mean that we don't block but it has to be done with much thought, even if it appears routine. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I have recently come across some js code that will freeze your browser if you visit wikipedia. Wanna put that in their monobook page?  ;) Btilm 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and de-confirm these users if the Academy is over. –xeno 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tsadaqbmein going on adding Bad links

This user is continuously adding Amazon.com in the Lady Gaga related articles like LoveGame, Paparazzi and Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) inspite of being warned not to. Most of them are GA quality articles and Amazon.com is considered hightly unreliable to be placed in such articles. The user is not only adding such links, but deleting sourced reliable sources and leaving spam links in between. I won't revert the articles should the user continues to vandalise like this, in fear of 3RR, but I hope that an administrater may come and intervene in the matter. Regards --Legolas 09:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism will not put you in conflict wit WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand Legolas concern over 3RR ... is the addition of non-RS links considered vandalism? Or, are we merely AGF-ing ourselves to death? A lot of the links that Tsadaqbmein add seem ok, it is apparently only a few that are problematic. I see only a mere attempt to discuss on his talkpage, without real specifics about Amazon not being a RS. Perhaps this needs discussion with him, not an ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have previously been blocked repeatedly for removing, in good faith, unsourced drivel from articles, including unreliable sources etc., as such actions are apparently (and illogically) not exempt from the 3RR. I wouldn't trust admins' common sense over this issue, watch your own back instead. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of personal attack over a period of nine months by User:Binarygal

On Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library starting in April 2009 (see Removed external links), Binarygal (talk · contribs) (at times using an anonymous IP, see WQA) has made repeated accusations of being bullied and the victim of personal attacks as well as making vague accusations against other editors being involved in a conspiracy. The recommended WQA process has been followed twice with no resulting change in behaviour or acceptance that this behaviour is a problem. Repeated passive-aggressive style claims of being a victim of personal attack can be considered a personal attack against those accused and in this case is disrupting the normal consensus process. Binarygal has become a WP:SPA, only editing this talk page since the beginning of 2009. In the most recent RfC discussion, Binarygal has made references to my previous account name which was changed for professional privacy reasons and prior issues with Binarygal making assumptions and statements about the professional associations of other editors that may be considered infringements of the guidance of WP:OUTING (see example diff). If she/he wished to substantiate these claims of attack, Binarygal has been advised many times of the dispute resolution processes available by several editors over this period on the talk page itself as well as during the associated WQA discussions.

As advised in the last WQA (see WQA), rather than raising this issue for a third time on that forum, I am raising this notice for assistance with these repeated accusations against me of bullying, conspiracy and harassment which are disrupting potential consensus on this talk page and I believe constitute a personal attack due to being repeated consistently over such an extended period.—Ash (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a simple topic editor. That is all. I know little about Misplaced Pages procedures, but I do know about the topic I edit and related issues.

Some months ago, prior to the date mentioned above, it became evident that there was a concerted attempt to misrepresent the reality of the topic in question, ITIL. It became clear that there was an issue regarding the Open ITIL movement, and a fairly clear attempt to marginalize it in terms of documenting its very existence.

I correctly resisted this in the article, but the reaction by the editor above in particular was almost unbelievable from my perspective. He launched what I can only describe as a campaign of attrition against all references to the open movement, and simultaneously against myself.

This continued beyond a point which anyone could consider reasonable, nor should have to tolerate. Votes on links came and went, but were repeated if they went the 'wrong' way. The determination to remove all such links is self evident to anyone who reads the history.

That is what I invite everyone to do. Please, please read the full history, because I am sick of this. He has used his knowledge of the Misplaced Pages procedures as one of a number of sticks with which to bully me, including outright abuse.

You will see that I have consistently requested a full investigation by Misplaced Pages. This has never been forthcoming.

On the specifics above: no, I have never 'outed' anyone. Please read the history. No, I am not a conspiracy nutcase as he tries to imply. Please read the history.

Yes, I stopped editing other articles when this campaign and the associated abuse began. He destroyed my enthusiasm and I lost my faith in Misplaced Pages. Please read the history.

It is all there to be seen. My colleagues are appalled, and I have often felt sick having read his diatribes, innuendos and false accusation. This HAS to be stopped.

Even here he is using his knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures as a pseudo-bullying technique. I have no idea how this page differs from the others he has placed his abuse and false allegations on, but it is yet another attack upon myself.

Nothing is going to stop him: he will continue to seek to remove the last of the Open ITIL links come what may. The countless hours and thousands of words he has invested in his pursuit of a single link tells a tale of its own. This is not normal, and I feel very uncomfortable: yet all I have done is try to defend the integrity of an article!

Please could someone finally investigate? Read all the history, and then try to tell me that this is acceptable, that his behavior is ok, and that the assault on the link(s) is that of someone merely trying to improve the quality of the article. Please also look at those other places he made his false allegations against me.

Please, this time, research this edit campaign and what has been happening with respect to the abuse of myself. Please check everything. All I ever wanted to do was use my knowledge to improve articles, yet this has become impossible to do.

BinaryGal (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70

I've attempted to report this to WP:AIV, but the bot immediately removed it do to an ongoing block. Yesterday, Tedder (talk · contribs) blocked 71.239.23.70 (talk) and sockpuppet account 75.22.138.39 (talk) for continued disruption, harassment, and trolling over Piccolo (Dragon Ball) (previous ANI report) Do to ranting at User talk:75.22.138.39, that account lost its privilege to edit it's own talk page. Now the editor as switch back to 71.239.23.70 (talk) and has been altering comments left by other editors at User talk:71.239.23.70. When these alterations have been reverted, the editor restores the alterations with increasingly uncivil edit summaries. —Farix (t | c) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Contested IP edits

• 209.244.43.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Jesus Franco;. Disruptive editing (deconstruction of article), no discussion or response to multiple warnings. — TAnthony 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just posted a 4im Vandal note. If it continues, report to WP:AIV --MWOAP (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting around page protection by creating a new article

When Najib Tun Razak was protected, Scandals of Najib Tun Razak was created, probably in order to get around the page protection. Much of the material from the 2nd article has recently been added to the first article. The 'scandals' article is now at AfD. I don't know if this is just coincidence or a new trend, but it's not good for the project. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, the creator of the fork says "This article is not meant to be permanent but an area where we can put all the information that was inadvertently deleted and whitewashed from the main article by a certain individual. The main article was temporarily frozen after I reported the individual of edit warring and whitewashing whole sections of the main article. The information from the current article will now be moved to the main article once we have gain consensus. But apparently that individual did not take any opportunity to gain consensus from other contributors or editors before whitewashing, putting us back in square one." This is pretty clear. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably the editor should be advised to put any such creation in his own userspace. But I don't see any need for administrative action. Suggest we close. AfD is taking care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)They should userfy the page until the matter is resolved (consensus established, etc.), then - without Cats and anything that makes it appear to be a legit WP article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that there is an interest in the discussion about this article, I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. It would be a better solution to freeze the main article Najib Tun Razak from further edits until consensus has been achieved, provided if one of you have admin priveleges. Otherwise this problem will continue to prolonged itself. Roman888 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we have to go through all of the AfD rigamarole for a POV fork. Speedy delete this. Woogee (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem editing a user's talk page

Fixed by MWOAP.

I can't edit the talk page of Piotrus (talk · contribs). There seems to be something wrong with the formatting of his page. I have some info which answers a request he made some two years ago at Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_December_23#SS_Tobruk_-_fictional_ship_or_real_one.3F. It is possible that he has some info on the ship which I don't that could be incorporated into the article when it is written. Anyone know what the problem is or how to fix it? Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is in the javascript of the page, I managed to squeeze in my tech issue template. If you go to the right and a bit below the end of the image, you can still click. Otherwise, don't know what is up. BTW, with userpage too. Going to mention this on IRC wiki-en-help. --MWOAP (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Solved it. User:Piotrus/Top is what whas covering the page. I don't know if admins want to clear the page or not. But it has been removed from the affected areas. --MWOAP (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've managed to leave him a message. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:XXXX&action=edit&section=new

should always allow you to add a new section to someone's talk page (just replace the XXXX with the username). TNXMan 19:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits

On the Akmal Shaikh page by User:91.103.41.50. He keeps reinserting material about the BBC 'Have Your Say' forum, which is not a reliable source. I think he has done more than three reverts and won't discuss it. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's also attacking me personally in his edit summaries. This article is attracting a lot of attention as it is on the front page and is about a contraversial execution. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack - previous edits by this ip seem to be both disruptive and to a strong Sino POV. Nothing wrong with the latter, providing they abide by consensus. Therein lies the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope he'll use the time to find a source to back up what he wants to say ... 86.150.96.115 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the user did break 3RR in the past 24hrs also. --MWOAP (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So it appears, but as soon as I saw the personal attack I blocked on that basis. The edit warring may be taken into account if the editor continues to be disruptive following the block expiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kralizecl

Undoubtedly created to impersonate User:Kralizec!. Tripped me off for a second. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute in Template:Seventh generation game consoles

Hi there. I've been watching an ongoing dispute in Template:Seventh generation game consoles, in which two users have been consistently removing one game console (Zeebo) from the list on the grounds that it's "not" a 7th-gen console. These users have not once provided a reason backed up by reliable sources - reasons have ranged simply from "It's not" to "People are saying it's not", but no reason considered valid by WP policies has been given. At this point, I'm asking for advice on how to handle the situation if it continues - I've sent a final warning to one of the users involved, and as of yet I haven't seen him repeat his behavior (it's only been a half-hour or so). I am not requesting direct intervention at this time. (I am an admin, and I'm not directly involved in the dispute, so I believe I can handle the situation if necessary - just asking for advice on appropriate block length, etc.)

Users involved:

• Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs) - currently removing "Zeebo" from the template.
• Vahid83 (talk · contribs) - Was also seen removing the entry as recently as October, same behavior.
• Wgungfu (talk · contribs) (Marty) - Established editor in video games project, been reverting edits by Guinea Pig Warrior and Vahid83 as "vandalism".
• KieferSkunk (talk · contribs) - I've been trying to facilitate discussion on this matter and asking GPW to provide reliable sources that back up his opinion. GPW has not been cooperating.

Relevant diffs:

• Example of Vahid83 removing "Zeebo"
• Marty reverts that edit
• Example of GPW doing the same thing
• Most recent removal by GPW (as of this writing) with an edit summary.
  • Current version of discussion page - minimal to no factual response from GPW or other editors.
• My final warning to GPW regarding the matter. Maybe a bit strongly worded, but this has been going on for months and it's getting tiresome.

There were also similar edit wars in the main Zeebo article (possibly still going on - haven't watched that page in a while) where its designation as a 7th-gen console was repeatedly removed and re-added.

Thanks for any help you can provide. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps drop a note at WT:VG seeking more opinions on the content dispute aspect of this situation. –xeno 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe most of the VGProj is already aware of the issue - we had a discussion there a while back about this, and most of the editors there chose not to get involved due to lack of domain knowledge about the console in question. I can bring it up again if you feel that would help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT The word "zeebo" only occured once in the archives - as an aside in a discussion about OnLive. The meta-issue as to what exactly constitutes a 7th gen console seems particular suited for WT:VG. –xeno 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I started a topic there, then. There was some discussion about this issue in Talk:Zeebo as well, but near as I can tell, GPW is the only registered user who seems to believe that this console doesn't qualify as a 7th-gen console, while Marty has provided numerous sources that categorize it as such. Lacking wider discussion on the matter, I believe Marty's actions have been in line with general policies and guidelines, and established consensus on how to categorize such a thing. (Namely, that a console's generation is not determined solely by its technical specs, but also its release date and target markets.)

In any event, I'm not trying to resolve the content portion of the dispute here. My point is that it's become a protracted edit war, the user in question is not cooperating and is continuing to push what looks like a single-user agenda, and that we're beyond the point of assuming good faith. We can deal with the content issue in the VGProj. I mainly want some advice on how to deal with the ongoing disruption from a procedural standpoint. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that as Marty has provided reliable sources to support the inclusion of Zeebo as a 7th gen console, if someone continues to disruptively remove the item based on personal opinion they should be blocked for disruptive editing. As this would be their first block, a suitable length would be no more than 24 hours. However, with more eyes and opinions on it, hopefully this will not be required. –xeno 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)

This AFD was incorrectly relisted by the nominating user. I have !voted in it, so I will not take any administrative actions regarding it, but could an uninvolved admin handle this (i.e. probably close it since there was enough discussion and tell the user that they should not do something like this)? Regards SoWhy 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the relist template as unecessary; the discussion has only been open 6 days and is not scheduled to end until tomorrow. Shereth 18:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also moved the listing back to the proper day (23rd) and am marking this as resolved. Shereth 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment by scjessey

This user has made up his mind that I am a sockpuppet and is chasing me around the wiki deleting my posts and hassling me. He ignores reasonable warnings and is clearly frustrated that he can't have his way on a talk page we are both editing. Please help. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How convenient! I was just in the process of creating a thread about this very matter:

IP editor 216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing disruptively at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and appears to be evading a block. Looking at this editor's pattern, I am convinced that this is the indefinitely-blocked Rex071404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who previously edited as IP 216.153.214.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both IPs appear to resolve to the same place, but I have no checkuser tool to confirm this. I thought about going to WP:SPI but I am unsure about the procedure for reopening old cases. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that it will finally silence SCJessey's accusations, I invite all formal inquiries about his sockpuppet accusation. I am not a sockpuppet. I am not the user he is referring to. I have never been the user he refers to. Additionally, I am not editing disrputively. In fact, I have received praise from two distinct editors for the clarity and patience of my reasoned dialog at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It is my contention that SCJessey has ownership issues with that particular article (and possibly others) and is frustrated that people won't just simply agree with the points he makes. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Rex hasn't substantively edited in close to four years, it's difficult to see how we could determine whether this is the same person (I don't think the articles being edited now were even around then). I haven't looked over their editing but that's a long leap in my view. As to whether the IP is being disruptive, that's a separate point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's because Rex (and a host of related IPs and socks) have been blocked. I'm convinced this is just another from the available evidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of the problem here can be discovered simply by looking at this IP's talk page history. For example:

• User:Frogger3140 (indef blocked for sock puppetry) moved the content of the IP's talk page to the talk page of the strange account User:User216.153.214.89 - an account which is also blocked.
• An attempt by User:Wikidemon to restore the content was reverted by the IP. Nothing wrong with that, except that it conveniently deleted lots of discussion about disruption and sock puppetry concerning Rex and Obama-related articles. An edit war over this content then took place.

There is also the matter of the apparent "ownership" of the IP's talk page. As I understand it, IPs are supposed to leave warnings on their talk pages because they don't own the talk pages in the same way registered users do. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(started before edit conflict with below message and closure of thread)...:::Wow, that was 14 months ago! It's all a little fuzzy, but whoever was editing from that IP account back then was clearly in league with the sock farms on the Obama articles, and spent most of their time attacking other editors and playing disingenuous process games. If the IP is so stable that the same editor has it 14 months later that suggests they do have a bit of a right to homestead on their IP talk page. On the other hand that would also suggest an indefinite block on that address if they continue to cause trouble. Whether or not someone owns their talk page, it's sometimes useful to restore all the old warnings when issuing a new one, so that any editor reviewing them can see the history of events without digging through the talk page history. Good faith editors have a right to manage their own talk pages and on the margins you don't want to edit war to keep warnings up on someone else's talk page. But at a certain point an editor can't have it both ways - if they want to invoke the benefits of Misplaced Pages's rules they need to follow them too. As for the initial...uh...I see this thread's been closed. nevermind.... - Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The IP is now blocked for sock puppetry policy violation, per the evidence in this thread. Jehochman 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some activity at ITER

Over the course of nearly two months, one IP address - that being 62.68.174.243 - has been repeatedly making the exact same edit to the article on the reactor, posting something about a "Molten Salt Reactor" that the IP apparently believes outperformed ITER's current goals back in the 1960s. The exact text inserted (obviously pasted, as it never changes) is as follows, entirely unmodified from the original in meaning, wording, or formatting:

Numerous proverbial "alarm bells" should go off at this text:

• One of the most suspicious aspects is the location of emphasis. Take note of which phrases are bolded, clearly intending to emphasize the apparent inferiority of ITER.
• The complete lack of citations. With no citations, there is no reason to believe the information here is anything but some attempt at defamation.
• The apparently hasty Wikiformatting and grammar; The underscores in the Wikilinks and the somewhat truncated and disjointed phrasing gives the impression of a copy-and-paste from either a blog or a similar site.
• One more additonal suspicious element is the placement of this text in the article. It is not placed in an appropriate location, but rather in a prominent location under a completely irrelevant heading.

This exact same text has been inserted nine times as of this posting, each time being reverted, often - but problematically far from always - fairly soon. The user has been warned many, many times, and even blocked for this at least once, but with no effect. Even after being blocked, the user vandalized ITER's article again, so many times as to again be reported to WP:AIV. Unfortunately, due to the fact the vandalism was not immediately caught - many hours passed - it was deemed "not recent" and no action was taken. I do not wish to get into that issue of judgment here, but rather to try to put an end to this vandalism to the article in question.

Unfortunately, there are some barriers to standard procedure:

• As the edits are not always timely caught, reverted, and, if need be, reported, WP:AIV will likely be ineffectual, frequently deeming the edits "not recent".
• Since the vandalism is always from the same address, and, judging by the fact it (and the reaction to its removal) is always the same, the same person, Article SemiProtection is not a valid choice, failing the "many vandals" criterion.
• As the content that appears defamatory is not directed at a person, but rather leveled at the ITER facility, WP:BLP is inapplicable.
• The IP apparently made uncontroversial edits to other articles, making blocking potentially problematic. (However, the IP appears to belong to an organization, so perhaps the constructive edits are being made by other members, with only one "bad apple" vandalizing Misplaced Pages.)

However, it is obvious that something must be done, as the edits could be damaging to the reactor, appear politically, commercially, or otherwise "factionally" motivated, and are sometimes lasting, leaving the page defaced for hours at a time.

The most convenient solution would be to somehow lock the IP out of editing ITER while allowing editing of all other articles, but I do not believe this to be possible. What can be done about this issue, and how can I help put an end to the vandalism on ITER?

-RadicalOne---Contact Me 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Christopher Thomas outlined at talk:ITER, the edits are good-faith, but POVish, misplaced, and uncited. The IP is shared; it has edited 2 articles over last month, edits to non-ITER article seem Ok. I suggest a temporal block for disruptive editing if the edits on ITER resume. I am watching the page and would be ready to block. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments in your talk page thread, reversion and appropriately-timed WP:AIV posts seem to work adequately. I posted to AIV after they'd made a string of ITER edits, and they were promptly blocked. From where I'm sitting, the system seems to be working as-intended. What action are you proposing that administrators take, specifically? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am merely worried that the edits will, as they have at times in the past, remain in place for an extended period of time, if only because noone is checking their watchlist frequently enough. This is detrimental to Misplaced Pages as a "reliable" source of information - a major concern, I believe - and possibly to the subject of the article itself, if potential funding providers get the idea of Wikisearching the reactor then seeing the waste of time and money the IP's edits make it appear to be. I do not know what action to take, which is why I asked for help and advice here. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Football hooligans

Three accounts, Shrewswill (talk · contribs), VillaFTW (talk · contribs) and KiiNGKanG (talk · contribs), seem to be staging more or less orchestrated attacks on articles related to English soccer. A case in point may be observed from the edit history of Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.. None of the accounts seem to be contributing anything useful. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith University Copyright violations

Someone keeps trying to whitewash the Adam Smith University article by removing information that is critical of the institution and then copying large amounts of text from the Adam Smith University website. I think that consideration should be given to either blocking the IP address or perhaps semi-protecting the article might be a better alternative. Thank you for your consideration, TallMagic (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the edit history of the article, it may be better to request page protection, if not report the IP editor to WP:AIV. However, the overall tone of the article does seems to be quite negative and does not comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Perhaps a copyedit to remove or replace POV terms, such as "controversial" in the lead, can improve the overall tone. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. No problem with cleaning up the article for neutrality as suggested above, but the edit history also indicates that there has been problematic behavior from multiple IPs. It is at once both possible to clean up this article, and to not blank it or remove good references or to replace existing text with text copied from other sources. --Jayron32 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, if the only things we can reasonably say about a school are "it's tiny" and "it's not accredited", the proper approach is to say nothing at all. We aren't a resource for "exposing" such schools, we're a neutral encyclopedia with inclusion guidelines. A previous, similar dispute about a different school went all the way to Arbcom, but it's probably simpler to go to AfD instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note on User:Ragusino

Just a quick note: could someone ban User:Mokosica, the latest incarnation of User:Ragusino? Its him all right, he's the only genius that uses Croatian toponyms for a username and then spells them without the Croatian Latin characters ("č", "ć", etc.). His latest sock was User:Mljet, after the island (Mljet), now its the town of Mokošica. He's also probably User:Orebic, after the town of Orebić. I don't get this guy... --DIREKTOR 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:DUCK. Have you filed an SPI? These accounts may come from a limited/quiet range. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

What should I do if I think an editor has gone over the brink between concern and obsession? I mean in the psychological sense. Rfc? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and we are not therapists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. But when they become problematic editors, like on talk pages, noticeboards, etc.?

Then we act according to, and only to, the policies being violated. WP:TEND is a start - WP:DISRUPT if it gets to warnings of potential sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize it's an essay, but often in such cases WP:CIR applies as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Disseminating private company info on Misplaced Pages?

I saw some odd behavior by Chuewie (talk · contribs) on the WP:SANDBOX. At first, his most recent edit appeared to be advertising, but on further look at the user's contributions, I saw what appeared to be information pasted from an employer's proprietary internal website . This raises a red-flag (is he using Misplaced Pages to circulate non-public info?) According to the contributions log, the only edits by this user are in the sandbox. However, the user's talk page suggest other less-than-productive articles created by this user (although I can't find an AfD on them), some with the same subject matter. Were other edits stricken by an admin from edit history? I don't know if the user is significantly harming Misplaced Pages (the incomplete contributions log makes it difficult to tell), but they are certainly using it to harm a company. Something doesn't smell right here, but I'm not sure what it is. Me Three (talk to me) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they are using WP as a personal notepad. Anyone good for contacting oversight on those edits that cannot be deleted? I will indef block the account in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight alerted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Administrator attention to the edit war on this article might be merited. I haven't posted this on WP:RFPP because I've already done so and the outcome was the blocking of one of the parties. But the edit war continues. Protection and blocking probably won't work. I think the editors all need a good talking to on the discussion page. Remind them there is an ongoing RFC, perhaps. --TS 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to take this whole mess to arbitration and get some stronger tools for fending off the troublemakers. What do you think? See Scjessey thread above. Two ANI threads at the same time is an indicator of something. Jehochman 22:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

+the ongoing AFD and DRV, and the continuing dispute at the email incident article (which is still Fully Protected)... yea, something is decidedly going on.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While the thought is appealing, I'm not going to go there as I don't think I, personally, have exhausted other avenues. This is all a bit new to me. --TS 22:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

An arbitration case would have the benefit of channeling a lot of nonsense away from articlespace and into projectspace, which may be reason enough to start one. But I don't see a practical need. What stronger tools do you want? Clearly there is a problem, and we should be reducing our threshold for blocks and topic bans. I don't think you need formal discretionary sanctions from ArbCom to do that. Do we really need a 3-month-long mudpit of an ArbCom case only to conclude that "Any uninvolved admin may sanction an editor if that editor repeatedly fails to respect the policies and goals of Misplaced Pages"? MastCell  22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of indefinite pending resolution of dispute, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This cannot go on. That page history has been nothing but reverts since the last protection expired. If letting it expire doesn't stop the edit war, this should. Work it out on the talk page. --Jayron32 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

-

This situation is in need of some kind of restriction, the dispute is materializing at multiple articles. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Outside influences are really fanning the flames here as well, which is something that should be considered. I don't see how we can reasonably work together when there are people publishing hyperbolic attacks against individual editors and Misplaced Pages in general within the print media and/or on blogs.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Active monitoring with a broad definition and strict enforcement of WP:Edit warring has at least moved Scientific opinion on climate change back into an editable article, though whether it ultimately "worked" is debatable. From talk: Only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. If anyone would like to try something similar, expect to get yelled at and to devote the entirety of your on-wiki time to the issue for at least a little while; still, it beats arbitration. I expect it will be next year before I have the time to have another go. Global warming is also a bit of a hot spot in the same topic area, if anybody is interested in earning admin-kudos. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Better yet. Leave the page fully protected and only allow edit protected changes through demonstrated talk page consensus. Your option leaves far too much room for gaming and relies far too much on the neutrality of a single admin. --GoRight (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That might well work on the article in question. The application of suitable pressure to all parties would help too. Don't look at me, I gave up my bit over three years ago and at times like this I don't envy sysops. --TS 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just read 2/0's proposal - it is very similar to the one I just made below (and after his). (See section below) Prodego 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident proposed editing restrictions

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article is rather high visibility - some of you might better know it as the "Climategate scandal". However, the article has been plagued by edit warring recently, and has been fully protected multiple times. I would like to try to get past these issues and allow improvement of the article, and to do so, I'd suggest establishing a 1RR restriction on the article. Hopefully this will force the issues over which the edit warring has occurred to be discussed on the talk page, while allowing constructive improvement to the article to continue unhindered. If this works out, perhaps these sorts of restrictions could be applied, similar to Arbcom editing restrictions, by uninvolved administrators in the area of Global warming related topics. Possibly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article mentioned in the section above could also benefit by this system. Thoughts? Prodego 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree. Sadly you've rather blotted your copybook there - see the report below - so I don't think you are the one to enforce them William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? I don't think that adding a tag in any way disqualifies Prodego from anything, and I'd endorse his being part of the enforcement team should this be adopted. He's about as far from a POV pusher as they come and has no dog in this fight. ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to the editing restrictions on editors connected to the Irish troubles might help, 1RR a day per editor. With editors falling foul of the conditions moving to one revert a week. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea and would suggest extending it to other articles as well. Off2riorob suggests a good initial escalation path. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing of a protected page by Prodego

<s>{{discussion top|</s>Prodego is hearby sent to bed without dinner. Everyone else is sent to the article talk page to discuss the matter civily.--Jayron32 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)}}

Um, not closable just yet. And certainly not with a somewhat partisan summary like that. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Prodego edited through protection at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident to add a POV tag. At first it looked like it might be a "neutral" admin action but further discussion User talk:Prodego#Inappropriate editing of a protected page makes it clear that Prodego added the tag because he wanted it on. There is no call for this eitng through protection; P hasn't even justified himself on talk (not that that would do; but it would at least be a gesture). P has made it clear that he won't revert his edit William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Lar has made a null edit to affirm the tag . He had asserted at User talk:Prodego that he has no dog in this fight, and also made a section at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Neutrality disputed. –xeno 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I wanted the tag on the page is because it is the right thing to do. No one has disputed that there is a neutrality dispute, and no one has disputed that a page with a neutrality dispute should be tagged. I have not been involved on the page (that I can remember, certainly not recently). My attention was brought to edit warring on the page, I tagged it, and have since then been thinking about how to mitigate the problem, thus the section above. Prodego 23:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem remains; that you committed the cardinal sin of correcting the The Wrong Version, which was protected as appropriate. –xeno 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That would apply to content pages, but adding a tag alerting readers to the fact that a dispute exists is not a substantive edit. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@X: I'm missing your point - or you're missing mine. A second edit through protection doesn't make the first any more valid. @P: yes, I'm disputing the validity of the tag, simply repeating that there isn't a problem won't make the problem go away William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My statement was more one of a point-of-order rather than saying whether that appropriately resolves the issue or not. –xeno 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags are not content. If they should be included or not is subject to much more objective criteria than the article itself. The fact that the page was protected for edit warring over a neutrality dispute makes it all the more obvious that there is a dispute over the page's neutrality. Prodego 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags are text. You can get blocked for 3RR for excessive removal or insertion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is someone disputing that there is POV issues on the page then this is a non-controversial action. When a page is protected it is common to add templates to indicate the problems leading to that protection. What exactly is the big deal here? Chillum 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's precedent for this type of drama: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder.27s actions tedder (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The complainer has again taken a tag issue to escalate to ANI as warring effort (ANI drama above). This is as lame tag dispute. The process goes like this, Step 1 - refute the tag, Step 2 - refute new material. Now the complainer will aggressively justify their actions with no remorse for inciting them. Why anyone invests their so precious time to make or answer this complaint is beyond me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Be fair. P hasn't broken 3RR to put his tag in, and at least one admin has agreed with him William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a truly lame dispute. Anyone who has edit-warred to insert or remove that {{POV}} tag should be smacked heartily with a trout. Any admin who has edited through protection to insert or remove the {{POV}} tag, or to "stand behind" its placement, should be smacked with a pod of orcas, at the very least. Come on, folks. The only way to win this one is not to play, as the WOPR realized. Be the first to let this tagging dispute go and I will buy you a virtual beer. Be the first admin to quit monkeying with The Wrong Version after protecting the page, and I'll buy you a virtual 40 oz. MastCell  23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd note that the edit warring that the page was protected for did not involve the POV tag. Prodego 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer? Please note that I am now letting this dispute go. Straight glass, please... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Chillum) The {{pp-dispute}} tag does the job of noting the existence of a dispute, in general. The problem is that yesterday, {{POV}} the tag was removed (by a non-admin). An admin editing through protection to re-add the tag is thus an inappropriate use of the tools. After EC - I concur wholeheartedly with MastCell. –xeno 23:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@C: it is blatantly obvious that this isn't a non-controversial action William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the neutrality of the article is disputed or nobody would have attempted to add the tag and the protection would not have been needed. If someone disputes the neutrality, and someone else does not, then it is still disputed. I fail to see how this is any sort of a big deal, the article has POV issues and it has been labelled as such. Chillum 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is admins using their tools to undo edits made by non-admins prior to protection. Whether they are ultimately "correct" is pretty much a red herring. –xeno 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly a content dispute. It is not as though he put his preferred version in, he re-added a tag indicating there is a dispute, he did not take a side in that dispute. I don't think we need to chastise our admins for adding accurate tags while not taking a side in a content dispute. If there is any actual damage being done then I don't see it. Chillum 23:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. –xeno 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is to make an encyclopedia. Chillum 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like he understands completely from where I sit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chillum in this case. He seems to have it right to me. Ale_Jrb 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute and there is a dispute over whether there is a dispute. The pp-dispute tag notes that there are disputes in general. The extra {{POV}} tag is just rubbing salt in the wounds of those locked out by the full protection - such as User:Viriditas who removed the tag yesterday and is now prevented from removing it again today. I have no dog in this fight either, but I understand why people are taking issue with admins editing thru protection to add this tag. See also the comments by CIreland below at 23:50 about how the tag may colour the readers' interpretation of the article. –xeno 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If someone is disputing it, there is indisputably a dispute. O_o It only takes one person for there to be a dispute (in fact, there are many) and you can't say there isn't a dispute just because you don't dispute it (that plural 'you' wasn't referring to anyone). Thus, the tag is objectively correct and unrelated to any content issues. Ale_Jrb 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that you dispute that there is a dispute over a dispute. Shall we pursue further non-dispute resolution? –xeno 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I never disputed that there was a dispute over the presence of the original dispute. I simply said (and maintain) that the presence of a dispute over the presence of the original dispute doesn't alter the fact that the original dispute is, in fact, still present. :D Ale_Jrb 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. The lesson here and from the similar dispute a short while back over the POV tag at Scientific opinion on climate change is that the admins should summarily block those removing the tag in the first place for disruption rather than assuming good faith. --GoRight (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that several of you, who are experienced editors and administrators, dont' see a problem here is fairly shocking. Xeno was absolutely correct in bringing this up. At the least, regardless of any reasons why, this is an abrogation of the trust given to those of you with the bit. Should I now seek RfA for myself simply to ensure that if I'm ever in a dispute on a protected page that I could protect my own viewpoint? I'm perfectly willing to "assume good faith" on these particular edits, but the message is still sent (especially to those whom we least want it to be seen) that "admins control Misplaced Pages".
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is that the {{POV}} tag often does not simply dispassionately note that there is a dispute about neutrality. Adding the {{POV}} tag is essentially a content edit (although, in an ideal world, it would not be) because it alters the way the readers may perceive the text; this is why the tag is so often edit-warred over; it's also why edit-wars over the tag are never WP:LAME - they are often regarded as vitally important by those reverting because the tag alters the slant of the article. It's also why an admin should never edit-through protection to add or remove a {{POV}} tag without a talk-page {{editprotected}} consensus; in 9 cases out of 10, adding or removing the tag automatically makes the editor involved. CIreland (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editprotected request had been made, I venture to suggest that most admins would have enacted it without question. The dispute is self-evident. Arguing over the process issues in respect of warning readers of the existence of the dispute seems like unnecessary rules-lawyering to me, and I am usually with William on anything related to climate issues. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking purely hypothetically; as I said, editing in response to a an edit-protected request for which there was consenus is a different issue since the admin is merely providing technical assistance and provides no content themselves. CIreland (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that an edit-protected request by a non-admin would have definitely been filled. Thus, you can consider it as an edit-protected request that was filled. The fact that the person making the request happened to be able to fill it themselves, therefore saving someone else time, shouldn't be controvertial. There clearly is a dispute - we're disputing it. Ale_Jrb 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can deny that there is a POV dispute on that page. It is obvious. This is nothing more than rules for the sake of rules. Chillum 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The very fact that we can have an argument/debate thing over this means people are disputing something. The tag means there is a dispute as to the neutrality of the article. If the person adding the tag disputes the neutrality, then someone else can't just remove the tag and say, 'actually they don't' - because they do or they wouldn't have added the tag. Why is this even controvertial? It's ridiculous. Ale_Jrb 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The pp-dispute tag already informs the reader about the existence of disputes in general. Adding the {{POV}} tag thru protection was thus unnecessary and inflammatory. –xeno

It describes the dispute with more accuracy and is not inflammatory or unnecessary, but accurate. We use that tag all of the time. Chillum 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to the tag itself, but in the adding of the same. This thread is indicative of inflammation... Anyways, I've said my bit and it looks like we're all fairly divided on this. I'm off to see Avatar in IMAX 3D - hopefully this train gets back on the rails at some point. –xeno 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, the solution is obvious. Put the POV tag up and block anyone that removes it unless and until there is a demonstrated consensus that such a dispute no longer exists. --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic GoRight? If you are not being sarcastic then I disagree. If you are then it is not really helping. Chillum 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to do so, it seemed to me that it was fairly obvious there was a dispute, so adding the tag would be fairly non-controversial. Clearly I was wrong at some step in that logic process. Prodego 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the tag itself is not controversial, I don't see anyone denying that there is a POV dispute on the page. It seems people are arguing about a matter of process rather than the value of the tag. The edit war was not about the addition of the tag and thus I see no problem with adding it after the protection, some apparently disagree. Chillum 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, it is a really bad idea to follow up inappropriate use of admin tools with altering another editor's civil post. There is nothing magical about images that exempts them from the policy against changing other editors' comments. Slow down, take a breather. Accept feedback. Durova 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your inserting pictures into discussions is always a good approach (or always civil)... they tend to give this reader the impression you want your words to have undue weight. Especially when you use the caption area for comments. But this probably isn't the place to debate that. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova, clearly some users disagree that there was any inappropriate usage of tools. I'm surprised that you would state that as fact. Ale_Jrb 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

NB. by restoring the image, it is now no longer clear who Prodego is replying too. Ale_Jrb 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks the action was inappropriate Durova. Also, the picture is sort of messing up the formatting so I can understand its removal. No big deal though. Chillum 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is indeed disputed. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense and the length of this thread demonstrates that whatever Prodego's intentions may have been, he worsened a situation that was already bad. Without comment upon the merits of either side, it is almost never productive to edit through full protection without a prompt explanation. There are very few reasons why editing through full protection even with an explanation would be useful (for BLP compliance or copyright compliance; most other things can wait unless editor consensus exists). Durova 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He did not make anything worse. This whole thread is what is making things worse. No wonder ANI is so full all of the time. If the sense was common then people would not be disagreeing with you. The protection policy allows for non-controversial changes and he had no reason to think it would be controversial. People seem to be more worried about the existence of the change than the content. Chillum 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Long ANI thread = the change was controversial. AGF tends to be in short supply wherever hot disputes occur. So the best course for an administrator is to be more circumspect rather than less. Durova 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did use the past tense Durova, "he had no reason to think it would be controversial". What is more, who is actually disputing that there is indeed a POV dispute on that page. I suggest you take it to the article talk page if you dispute the presence of the tag. This is not a behavioral issue, but something the thrash out on the talk page. Chillum 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, putting down other people's opinions in this manner is worse then Prodego's edit. I continuously find the lack of sensativity among members of this community to be galling. Sheesh!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin protection wheel war became an arbitration case. When Michael Jackson passed away I nearly took another administrator to arbitration for protection wheel warring: he full protected the page in order to put his own preferred version through without edit conflict. The latter was a very newly promoted administrator so I let it slide when he tried to argue that the content of his edit was correct. Neither Prodego nor Chillum are new. The metaphor of a train wreck was neither decorative nor accidental. Durova 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A crazy idea

I have an idea so crazy it might just work! Why not go to the talk page of the article and seek consensus on if the tag should be there or not? It might just be more productive than filling ANI up with "this is bad", "no it is not". Just handle it like any other disagreement, I don't see any admin action needed here. Chillum 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How is the misuse of administrator privileges related to any one article in particular?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The protection policy allows for changes that an admin thinks will be non-controversial. Prodego has stated that is what he thought, and I see no reason to dispute that. This is not an admin misuse issue. This is about one article. I still don't see anyone denying that there is a POV dispute at the article, just a bunch of policy wonkery. Chillum 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks non-controversial to you?!? He was aware enough of the details of the dispute to add a topical tag to the article. That's hardly a neutral act... look, this isn't about disputing what the edit was, this is about trust. If you've ever wondered why people don't trust the community here, this is the reason why. Straight up, I don't trust any of you. If it were up to me I doubt that anyone would have admin right right now. As a group we just can't act appropriately when it really matters.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this IS a crazy idea. If left to the majority that is controlling the page they will NEVER come to a consensus that they have created an article that violates NPOV. Consensus does NOT work in the case of something like the POV tag. If there is a disagreement, as everyone here seems to be agreeing, then the tag should go up unless and until you get a consensus that it should be removed. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

...or you could all just agree to remove the tag since at least some editing colleagues have expressed disdain for it, stop poking at each other over who did what to who with the feather duster and concentrate on the whatever it is that's putting WP in a bad light. No tag magically changes an article from one thing to another, any more than putting a glacier cherry on a slug turns it into a cake, so frick knows why calories are being burned arguing about it. Someoneanother 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No one in their right mind could dispute that there is a Neutral point issue of view at the article but for what it is worth the template can just as easily be removed, it is a distraction as to the real issue which is what are we going to do about the multiple edit wars that are breaking out at climate change articles on a daily basis. There are multiple threads here, multiple threads at the BLPN and at the 3RRNB. The whole issue is very disruptive to the wiki in general at the moment with no sign of any solution between the groups of opposing editors Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

<s>{{discussion bottom}}</s>

In response to some other comments upstairs, no one is disputing that Jayron Prodego thought the edit would be uncontroversial. In light of this thread, it does appear he made a mistake though. Equazcion 01:15, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I still don't see anyone claiming there is not a POV issue with the page. The complaint seems to be that he should not have edited the protected page because it was protected, the controversy seems based on that not a dispute with the accuracy of the tag. An argument cannot support itself, so this is all very strange. The protection policy allows for non-controversial changes, it seems the change itself is not controversial. The controversy seems to be the making of the change regardless of its content. I see a lot of agreement here that there is indeed a POV issue with the page. Until at least someone claims that there is not a POV dispute on that page then I can't humor the idea that the tag is controversial. Chillum 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's imperative that that be determined here in order for the edit to be reversed. The edit was controversial, period. Whether or not the tag belongs in the article is something that should be discussed on its talk page, not at ANI. We're just hereto determine if the edit was controversial, and it seems to have been. Controversial edits are ones that cause controversy, and this one has. Equazcion 01:21, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Ya, except that people are making controversy because the edit is controversial because the edit is controversial because the edit is controversial even though people agree it was correct. An argument cannot be its own supporting argument. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. There is some missing logic there. Regardless of this self-fulfilling prophecy Prodego did not think it was controversial when he made it, and nobody seems to be disgreeing with the applicability of the tag. So this is not a behavioral issue, and people agree that the tag is correct. What is remaining to be solved here? Chillum 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're providing reasons that the controversy is unwarranted, but that doesn't preclude its existence. Equazcion 01:25, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

So? Why don't we build an encyclopedia? Chillum 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of this issue as stupid is irrelevant. When you care about something that other people don't, I hope they don't tell you to drop it. Some people seem to think this is important. Does the POV tag really do so much for the article that it can't be removed as a matter of technicality, until its placement can be discussed on the talk page? Equazcion 01:29, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, please fix your comment there. I have never added any tag to this article. --Jayron32 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. Equazcion 01:25, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

normally, there is nothing that amuses me more here than an argument over whether there is an argument: if there is a dispute over whether a pov tag is appropriate, than it is, because it says that the POV has been questioned, which it has. The tag is appropriate until the matter is resolved. If the matter can never be resolved, then we must admit as much. (It might seem even sillier that any reader might come to this article and think there is no dispute over it, tagged or no, but I suppose that everyone must some day encounter this issue for the first time.) I consider the editing through protection to place the tag to have been done in perfect good faith and as a mere statement of the obvious. But even the most honest person should pay some attention to their repute, and ask someone not involved in the article to do the deed--if only for self protection against those who might accuse him. The amount of attention paid to this indicates there is no shortage of admins available with no work on their hands. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But Prodego was not involved in the article. At least I don't see him in the last 1500 edits, not on the talk page either. I agree this was a good faith neutral act that was believed to be non-controversial. Chillum 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(to DGG) I'm not seeing a dispute over whether the POV tag is appropriate, only whether its addition despite the page protection was appropriate. I don't think anyone's really disagreeing with it being a good-faith edit (at least I'm not), just that, with this aftermath, it was a mistake, since ti was clearly not uncontroversial enough to warrant placement during protection. Equazcion 01:40, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Except it's a tag, not text. If you read the talk page, there is a faction there who is laboring mightily to claim that there is no POV problem whatever... but there is another faction who says there is a problem and gives examples. The existence of a faction saying there is a problem is enough to justify that there is a problem. Therefore the tag, which is a tag, not text, and is process related, not content related, is not a controversial addition. Rather, it is an administrative action that needs to be taken. The action was made by a previously uninvolved administrator. The action was REmade by another previously uninvolved administrator. I am, frankly, dismayed that there is any argument about this at all.... it's symptomatic of this whole thing being a much bigger problem than at first realised. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging is an administrative action? I've never heard of that. If there's a dispute on the talk page about a tag, then removing or placing it during protection is an attempt the fix The Wrong Version. I'm not here to take a side in that dispute; only to say that it's not an administrator's job to settle a dispute regarding tagging by placing the tag on the protected page. I don't think that's ever been considered appropriate. Equazcion 02:25, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not settling a dispute to say "there's a dispute". ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is if the dispute is regarding the very placement of the tag. We've seen this before. People argue about the placement of dispute tags all the time, and sometimes that results in page protection itself. It's not administrator's job to unilaterally make the final call -- even if they (or you) consider it obvious. Even if the dispute is over whether there is a dispute, that doesn't make it okay for an admin to declare the answer and implement it on a protected page. Equazcion 02:40, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, think about what you're saying. Anyone could resist the placement of any tag at any time by saying there was no ____. (for whatever value of ____ the tag applies to) That's just crazy policy wonking. There's a request for a case about this, (Misplaced Pages:RFAR#Climate_Change) so I guess we'll see. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not here because there's a dispute over a tag. We're here because someone with an opinion on that dispute acted on it despite the page being protected. Also, your logic is slightly off: The tag says there is a dispute regarding neutrality, not tagging -- so the argument over tagging doesn't prove that particular tag's appropriateness. Equazcion 02:53, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Unless Prodego was involved on the talk page – and people above say he was not – adding a POV tag is a simple courtesy that any uninvolved admin could perform, just like adding a protection notice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But the question of whether or not the tag belonged was in dispute on the talk page. Whether he was involved or not, placing the tag was then taking a side. If there has been no dispute at all about the placement of the tag, I could see it being placed during protection. But if it's being disputed, then no. Equazcion 03:00, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, it's your logic that is off. This may not be the case for all tags, but for neutrality tagging, the very fact that some people say the tag is needed (i.e. that there is a dispute about whether the article is neutral or not), means it is needed. Regardless of what other people say. We've had this argument before and if it's not true, then it means that anyone can hold up the addition of any tag at any time. And that's just not workable. Unless you are a Monty Python fan who believes in the reality of the Argument room as the only place arguments are allowed. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If people were arguing over the tag on the talk page, that's just more evidence that the tag should have been there (and this is my opinion as someone completely uninvolved with this particular page, but having seen too many similar disputes in the past). Honestly, I think that placing tags like this is a pretty common practice, relative to the number of pages protected due to neutrality disputes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You (Lar, and post-edit-conflict, Carl) keep presenting arguments for how obviously correct the tag's placement was, but I'm saying that question is irrelevant. I don't care whether or not the tag is warranted. It's not an admin's job to implement that decision on a protected page. The policy on protection doesn't make allowances for edits that an admin thinks are obviously warranted -- only for uncontroversial edits. This one wasn't. Equazcion 03:17, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The protection policy as I know it certainly permits uninvolved admins to edit through protection to place tags such as protection notices and POV tags on protected articles. If the description on WP:PROTECTION doesn't reflect this, all I can say is that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and our policy pages do not always reflect reality. Prodego's edit was well within the discretion we expect of administrators, and part of their "job" is to do such things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we just do this? 1. Prodego removes the tag. 2. Prodego says "Hey, I'm sorry; I didn't think that was a controversial edit, but apparently I was wrong!" (cited to this thread if needed.) 3. Everyone else says "Hey, it's cool now; the tag is gone, you understand that you made a mistake, and WE understand that your intentions were good." 4. Prodego says, quietly and under his breath, "Man, I sure won't do THAT again," and he does not, in fact, edit through protection w/o going through the proper procedure. 5. Everyone else says, quietly and under THEIR breath, "Wow. Maybe next time when we see something like that, we'll stop and wonder if the admin in question might have perfectly-good motives, even if we don't agree with them," and they do, in fact, AGF in the future. 6. Encyclopedia-building resumes apace. Anyone got a good reason why this isn't a viable plan? GJC 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It leaves the article untagged. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would that be such a detriment to the article? Equazcion 02:41, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

So, the problem is then that the article is on The Wrong Version. What's the problem, exactly?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's not a content problem at all. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be a permeating syllogism to suggest that the wrong version only regards text and not tags. I could see the argument being made for it, but it's a very original concept as far as I'm aware, and not established at all. Equazcion 02:57, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in general with uninvolved admins editing through protection to add tags about a dispute. I don't see any reason to remove the tag, just wait until the underlying issue is resolved and the protection is lifted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The point is to make an encyclopedia. Chillum". Zackly so. Now I realise why I avoid this page like the plague. This is a dispute between two bald men over a comb. Rodhullandemu 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read through this thread I think something obvious is missing here. Prodego didn't just add the tag, he re-added it. It had been removed just before by an editor who hadn't sought consensus at the talk page. After the removal of the tag was discovered, such a discussion started ]. I include the first four comments under that heading for reference. Troed (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• What happened to the " ... neutrality is disputed ... " tag? I wasn't aware that they expire, and I am unaware that the neutrality of the article was no longer contested.
• It was removed by Viriditas here, but I do not see any indication is was discussed. Can someone point me to the discussion? If not, we should request it be replaced, and Viriditas admonished
• I concur we should request it be replaced; the ongoing discussion and periodic edit warring serve as ample evidence that the neutrality of the article is disputed.
• The removal of the POV tag seems premature, and I move for it to be re-instated at first reasonable opportunity. Perhaps Viriditas did it by accident. That's the only good faith explanation I can come up with. After reading the comment on your link, I have absolutely no idea what good faith explanation could be tendered.

Arbitration case requested for climate change-related articles

• Misplaced Pages:RFAR#Climate Change

I requested the above case be opened. I'm not very eloquent, nor have I been involved* in these issue. Hopefully others can add better comments to this case opening to articulate the issues better. * by "involved", I mean "interested and active". Please don't unironically discuss my use of this term. tedder (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could consider trying the editing restrictions I proposed above, instead of a full blown arbcom case? Prodego 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible TOV

Can this be construed as a threat? Any help in dealing with this user will be appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards