This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hersfold. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This page contains discussions dated during the month of October 2009 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.
October 1 - 15
Procedural questions about proposed final decision
Once a proposed final decision is posted, is there a process for parties to comment, suggest changes, etc.? Is there a rough rule of thumb, or range, for the between posting a proposed final decision and a final decision being adopted? This is my first arbitration. Thank you. Finell(Talk)00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
Users can comment on and discuss the Proposed Decision on the PD's talk page - the PD page itself can only be edited by Arbitrators and Clerks. The Arbitration Committee (mainly the drafting Arbitrator, Cool Hand Luke) will post proposals, mostly obtained from the Workshop, although some will be originally written, and then vote on which ones they feel are most appropriate for the case. I'll keep track of which are passing and which aren't; all those that are passing at the time the motion to close the case passes will be adopted into the Final Decision. The timeframe for voting is usually from a week to three weeks; the last case I closed took almost four. Hope this answers your questions. Hersfold(t/a/c)03:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Will the PD talk page be structured similarly to the Workshop, so that each proposed principle, finding, and remedy can be conveniently commented upon individually? Finell(Talk)04:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, except that you don't be able to edit the PD page itself, as I mentioned. Each proposal will be assigned a number, and most will have unique titles, so referencing them isn't difficult. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, Thanks for fixing up the format of my proposals at the workshop. I'm not from the computer literate generation. As regards what you said about the arbitration committee not normally ruling on content matter, I can't see then what else that leaves. If they are not going to look into the actual details of the argument, then I can't see how they can verify the allegations that I have been pushing fringe theories and original research. Alot of the so-called evidence for disruptive behaviour has been a pyramid of accusations based on earlier accusations. There was absolutely no disruptive editing on my part at the speed of light article. You are witnessing a momentum driven by hysteria. At WT:PHYS I obviously brought something to attention that wasn't welcome.
While writing the proposals at the work shop today, within the structures that you have provided, I can see that you are looking for general principles to solve the problem at speed of light. I couldn't help thinking that the entire point has been missed. I have been seldom involved at the main article, and when I was, it was only for a few days at a paragraph in the history section. I did make a couple of edits to the introduction too. They weren't very controversial and they weren't immediately kicked out, but they disappeared in the ongoing renovation. The main article seems to get edited nearly everyday. I put this down to the confusion that has followed in the wake of the 1983 redefinition of the metre in terms of the speed of light. I did my bit on the talk page in the first half of August to drive the tautology home, and I got banned for my efforts. The confusion still continues to this day, and there comes a point when one starts to lose interest, especially when it becomes apparent that deliberate obfuscation lies at the bottom of it all. I have my own theory that even though the BIPM decision ostensibly didn't intend the fixed defined value to be confused with the physical constancy of the speed of light that is used as a postulate for Einstein's special theory of relativity, that nevertheless, relativists thrive on the confusion, and that BIPM may well have intended that. The confusion suits relativists down to the ground, and so what relativist wants to have Brews coming along and making the distinction clear, never mind me coming in behind him to re-inforce the point. I think that ultimately that is what was behind the whole dispute. You can see my thoughts on the matter developing if you read the speed of light talk page from about the 3rd to the 7th of August. David Tombe (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the background to this case, the scientific knowledge needed to understand it, or who is on what side. Nor do I particularly care. As I have said, multiple times now, my only concern here is to see this case through as quickly and drama-less as possible. Explaining the situation to me is about as useful as talking to a brick wall.
I do understand that you are frustrated and see no wrong in your actions. That's quite acceptable. The problem stems from the fact that everyone believes that their own actions are correct; that's a simple fact of human nature. ArbCom's role here is not to say who is or is not correct in the matter of content, since that is determined by community consensus, but to determine what is causing roadblocks to the formation of that consensus, and do away with said roadblocks and their causes in whatever means necessary. I should warn you that very often this means one or more editors will be topic-banned from the area of dispute; it is not uncommon for this to extend to a general siteban of some duration. This may include you; it may not. As I said, I don't care, that's not my job here, it's ArbCom's. They will look into the details of the dispute as much as possible to assist in an accurate and effective final decision; that's what the evidence page is for, to aid in this endeavor. However, the Arbitration Committee cannot be expected to have the background knowledge necessary to determine what information is and is not correct; for example, Newyorkbrad is a lawyer, Vassyana is an artist. Not to insult them, but their extent of knowledge about the speed of light is probably limited to the fact that it's how fast light travels and that it's nearly 300 million m/s. Beside that, they probably don't care except for the fact you lot are arguing over it. That's why they don't rule on content. Conduct, on the other hand, can be relatively easily determined based on a series of universal community-set standards. So that's what they do.
Because ArbCom rules on conduct and not content, assertions are made, and expected to be made, that various editors were being disruptive and are the root of the dispute. These assertions help ArbCom determine where parties believe the dispute lies and how it can best be dealt with; that's why we have the workshop and evidence pages. It is not uncommon for one user or one small group of users to be on the receiving end of these assertions. In this case, those users seem to be yourself and Brews Ohare. When you find yourself in that position, yes, there is an onus on you to demonstrate how you have not been disruptive, how your efforts have contributed to the project as a whole, and/or how you may have improved from previous errors. That last point is why your block log is being repeatedly brought up; several users are asserting your conduct has not improved since your indefinite block. It is on you to demonstrate to the Committee how it has improved, or at the least not worsened. You are, of course, welcome to provide alternative points of view. You clearly believe that the dispute is a result of Phischym62 and others not accepting various sources. The Committee will also consider your point of view and any provocations you may have received when they determine their final decision.
To go back to the point from the beginning of the last paragraph, there is also an onus on you to demonstrate that you are not disruptive within the case itself. The matters the Committee considers are not limited to the area of dispute; they also consider conduct during a case. In the last case I clerked, Abd-William M. Connolley, WMC (then an administrator) blocked Abd during the arbitration case. There were also several instances of edit warring on the case pages. The Committee took these behaviors into account, and I believe the remedies they implemented were considerably harsher than they would have been otherwise, including a lengthly site-ban for Abd, a desysopping for WMC, and a minor admonishment for Mathsci (whom probably would have avoided mention in the final decision entirely were it not for his part in those and other incidents).
Now I really feel as though I've explained this to you several times already, albeit in considerably less detail. If you are still having difficulties with these topics, please try reviewing the guide to arbitration and some past cases for more information. I would very much like to be able to return to my assigned role of maintaining case conduct and keeping the page formats in order. Thank you. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, OK. Thanks for giving me the run down on the procedure. We'll just have to wait and see how it goes. But are you not curious as to why a group of editors are so desperate to have two editors blocked, especially as I have only been minimally involved in the dispute? It was what I said during that short time that seems to have badly upset them. Can you ever imagine yourself in a situation of being obsessed with the idea of getting somebody else permanently blocked? I've wanted opposition warned for reverting edits on the main articles, but if I encountered opposition on a talk page, I'd just argue on until I got bored. I wouldn't be running to AN/I to get them blocked permanently. These guys have got something to hide.
I'm not at all surprised, no. As I said, this sort of thing happens at Arbitration. If they didn't feel there was an issue, they wouldn't have requested the case.
I'm not going to read the rest of your post in detail because from scanning it, it appears to mostly be insinuations of bad faith against the other parties. This page is also not for you to soapbox on, possibly even less so than the arbitration pages. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, The bit that you removed was not insinuations of bad faith against the other parties. It was about insinuations of bad faith on the part of another party. David Tombe (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, That's a bit of a change of tune. You said at the workshop talk page,
In general, messages directed at me should be left on talk page. It's very easy to get to and is conveniently linked in my signature. There is no guarantee that comments left on this page will be seen by me.
I did read it, thank you for the (double) (triple, let me edit dammit) edit conflict. David, I don't see any legitimate concerns there. I'm seeing conspiracy theories and assumptions of bad faith. You're assuming that Finell is now going to take this other tack linking you to this IP editor. Finell hasn't said a damn thing about it in the last several days from what I can see. You'll also be pleased to know (or perhaps not) that I already checkusered you several days ago and found that you have no relation whatsoever to the IP. In the event it is brought up (which again, it hasn't, and probably won't be now I've said this), I will be sure to step in in my role as a checkuser and end that line of thought there.
I do not want to hear conspiracy theories about what you "think" someone "might" do. When and if someone is actually making personal attacks against you, then you can let me know. The latter is my job; the former is merely assumptions of bad faith, and you're already toeing a very thin line with that. I warned you that if I read it you might get blocked; and now I'm going to find an Arbitrator for advice on how to proceed. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't contend that Tombe edited from the IP addresses in VA; he lives in England according to editors who looked into this before. However, the indefinite block last year was for his checkuser-confirmed use of 2 alternate accounts and an IP address to evade a previous 3-month block. The point of my very recent addition to the Workshop (before I saw your message on my talk) is that even today, warnings and all, he believes that it is OK for him to evade a block if he thinks the block is "unfair"; that's what he said in the part you deleted.
Further, Tombe is not speculating about my working on additional evidence (I don't believe that presenting evidence of conduct is a personal attack, but deciding that is up to ArbCom or you). He sees that I am doing so, openly, in my user space at User:Finell/SOL (if I wanted to conceal it, I do know how to use Word, but working on-wiki is more convenient). I did not plan on submitting any evidence or proposals in the arbitration, which is why I did not do so earlier. I thought that the evidence submitted by others, plus Tombe's block log, would support some sort of topic ban, and thought that was a sufficient remedy. So I just commented on others' proposals and made some talk page comments in response to other editors. However, the escalation of Tombe's tendentiousness during this arbitration (even before his Nazi postings) persuaded me that a broader remedy was warranted (of course, the decision is up to ArbCom). So I started putting together additional evidence to support a broader remedy. I hope to finish in an hour or so, but I usually always underestimate.
Just so you know, although I don't think that Tombe was sitting at a keyboard in VA, I do believe circumstantial evidence shows that Tombe was involved in the activities of the Lone Ranger from VA (that's Tombe's term), either feeding scripts or recruiting an inordinately devoted fan (again, ArbCom will decide what weight, if any, to give this). That's the part I'm working on now, so the connection isn't written yet (I start from the external evidence and work backward). Tombe has delayed my completion of it by continuing to provide more evidence. And I work for living, so I grab time as I can. Finell(Talk)03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time he's been blocked in a year; I don't see what his motives for block evasion have to do with the current dispute, which was the reason for David's concerns and my comment on your talk page.
I wasn't aware of your evidence subpage, but all the same, the soapboxing here was out of line, especially since he'd been asked to stop.
Circumstantial evidence is simply that - circumstantial. You're going to need a good bit more than that to show he was managing meatpuppetry across an ocean. That seems rather impractical, and I'd think it would be fairly obvious if it were the case. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Request to move comments on Speed of Light workshop page
Please consider moving the comments by David Tombe and Brews ohare out of this section, as the instructions by Cool Hand Luke are to not edit in others' sections there. You may also wish to get explicit permission from CHL for the section to be there, as Sbyrnes321 isn't a named party, though he has provided evidence and input to the workshop. Note also that there is a related proposed principle on the page. No need to reply to my talk page, as I'll see a reply here. Tim Shuba (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think he was actually trying to make a proposal; it looks like a valid attempt at participating, just in the wrong place and formatted badly. I'll move things around in a minute, thanks. Hersfold(t/a/c)07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify what is expected of editors contributing to this case. It appears to have two somewhat different objectives:
1) Determination of possible new guidelines or policies that would better control the editing atmosphere on all Talk pages, and are generalizable to wide policy.
2) Determination of whether particular editors should be admonished, blocked or banned based upon their behavior since time began in all aspects of their WP activity.
Question: I know an attempt to summarize objectives has appeared earlier, but in simple terms are these the objectives?
Assuming these are the objectives,
The first objective appears to be a less commonly undertaken inquiry. IMO it is the most significant part of the case.
My feeling is that the circumstances at speed of light are rather extraordinary in their intensity (at least for a technical subject), and might well provide an opportunity for learning something about Talk page dynamics and just what Admin action can do to catalyze discussion and put a lid on developments that lead to a crazy Pavlovian atmosphere.
Question: Do you wish me (or others) to make an assessment of the various proposals of this general nature in subsection Analysis of evidence, in addition to those I have made already , or do Arbitrators wish to synthesize what already is said without more opinions to wade through?
The second objective appears to be one often dealt with by administrators, and I'd guess is dealt with by examining diffs.
Question: Is it expected of me (or other editors) to make an overall assessment of the various allegations and diffs concerning myself in the Analysis of evidence, or is that simply the Arbitrators job to resolve? I have made this assessment mentally, and my thesis would be that, aside from quarrels over the volume of my edits, the situation is a tempest in a teapot unrelated to content of my edits or my other behavior. I would attempt to back that up by assembling diffs from all sources.
Question: Is it expected of me (or other editors) to make an overall assessment of the various allegations and diffs concerning other editors in the Analysis of evidence, or is that simply the Arbitrators job to resolve? I have made this assessment mentally, and my thesis would be that the tempers of editors on Talk: Speed of light have become very frayed, to the point that unacceptable invective, distortion, and even threats, are the rule rather than the exception, and violations of existing guidelines are routine. Although blocks and/or bans could be undertaken, I'd recommend that they be based upon future, not past, behavior (which should be under clearer control following the decisions of this Case).
To summarize, to what degree do the Arbitrators wish to see the individual editors summarize matters as they would do if they themselves were the arbitrators, and is the subsection Analysis of evidence the place to do this? Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It generally is not the purpose of an Arbitration case to define new policies. Policies are generally worked out through community consensus; at most, the Committee will urge the community to begin discussions relating to the development of some new policy, however they will not initiate said discussion themselves, nor necessarily ensure that a new policy is in fact formed. The main purposes of an Arbitration case are twofold:
To determine the cause of disruption and controversy in a particular dispute, and
To, through whatever means necessary short of decreeing the content of the articles, remove said causes of disruption so that the processes of consensus and collaboration can once again carry on. Very frequently, this does involve someone getting banned.
The Analysis of Evidence section is, as the name implies, intended for the analysis of evidence only. I notice several editors including the drafting arbitrator have commented that some of your analysis efforts are not actually analysis. I'm not sure I understand your question here; if your intent is to critique workshop proposals, that can be done in the relevant sections on the workshop or in general discussion on the workshop talk page. If your intent is to analyze existing policies and how they have been applied at SoL, then that would be best presented as evidence on the Evidence page.
You are not necessarily expected to provide any analysis of the evidence provided in regard to any user, as the Arbitration Committee will be reviewing all evidence before voting on the proposed final decision. However, such analysis can help the Committee see where you stand on an issue, and may help them understand what's going on from an insider's viewpoint. Obviously, this would be most effective if someone provided some analysis and it was well critiqued by other parties.
Thank you for clarifying all this. I am disappointed that policy development is not part of this case. My view is that is what is needed here. Perhaps more rigorous enforcement of existing policies upon all participants, particularly WP:TalkWP:NPAWP:Civil will be sufficient; one may hope. However, as I have pointed out in my contributions, other simple guidelines would be more effective: forced regard for content; curtailment of inaccurate depiction of editor's contributions and stances; and so forth. Personally, I don't think banning or blocking of editors on WP will change things one bit; it is an approach that happens too late, too seldom, and is too partisan. Moreover, it is readily done without an exhaustive fact finding such as this Case. My interest in this proceeding is severely shaken. Brews ohare (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that will help, you may want to consider proposing discretionary sanctions be applied to the Speed of Light article - that would essentially provide the rigorous enforcement you're looking for. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I found Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions; I don't think that is going to be more effective than any policies already in use. So far as I can tell, it's just a bypass around a Case like this one, allowing a single editor to make their own judgments without a committee. It's faster, I'm sure, but may prove to be partisan simply because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Brews ohare (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it has worked reasonably well in some areas. If you have concerns about how effective this all will be, though, be sure to bring them up on the workshop talk page. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Request to enforce length limit in Speed of Light evidence section
By my count, the evidence section of Brews ohare is currently close to 1900 words, in clear violation of the limit. Please review and take corrective action as appropriate per the informational box at the top of the top of the page. Thanks, and again no need to respond to my talk page. Tim Shuba (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In this matter, my evidence section of Brews ohare is divided in parts. The part presenting my ideas about the case is called "Specific issues" and is 320 words long. The remainder is a defense against 4 individual attacks by 4 other editors. (Previously 7 attacks by 7 editors.) Here is a question: Inasmuch as this Case has become Case/Brews_ohare & D Tombe instead of Case/Speed of light, why is it that every editor presenting against me gets 1000 words, while I get only 1000 words to respond to the whole group? Brews ohare (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews: There is a better question that you and Tombe should ask yourselves, and I mean this sincerely and not rhetorically: Why is it that so many other editors disagree with your content and your manner of discussion? That the two of you seem to let in almost none of what other editors say to you, either about content or your manner of expression, is both unusual and is the reason why others react as negatively to the two of you as they do. What about your own (and Tombe's) "catcalls" and "putdowns" (e.g., "can't tie their own shoelaces")? Even when you said you would try to follow my simple, non-controversial suggestion to compose and perfect your posts before you save them, instead of doing so many rapid edits in a short period of time which many of the other editors object to (Editing practice), you made no change in this behavior. Self-examination and a willingness accept what others say is necessary for getting along in any group.
I do a lot of committee work in my real world profession, and I've been chair of several committees. A lot of the work is collaboratively writing reports (e.g., position papers), some of which are controversial. Sometimes I'm in the majority, sometimes the minority. When we debate a point and I've said what I have to say, I stop; sometimes I've persuaded a majority, sometimes I haven't, but that's the end of it. Others behave the same way. The first time I was chair of a professional committee, members objected that I was participating too much in the discussion: I'd call on a member, then comment on what that member said, and so on with each member who spoke. They were right, so I stopped doing that immediately. And I never did it in any other committee I chaired since.
At various times you've said you respected Sbyrnes321(he signs as "Steve") and Dicklyon. You and Tombe even proposed appointing Sbyrnes321 as a "referee" to rewrite Speed of light: Hand the article over to Steve Byrnes. They have both made clear that they don't agree with the content you propose and that the sources you cite do not support it. Even that gives you no pause.
When you don't let anything in and put up a brick wall, others try harder and harder to break through, then they get exasperated, then they write you off, then you feel attacked and isolated. I really wish you would think this over and try to understand this. You would get along much better, and have a better chance of persuading others, if you do. And if you don't persuade the others, maybe the others aren't all wrong.Finell(Talk)16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell: Your advice sounds fine in the abstract, but it assumes facts about myself not in evidence and confuses me with D Tombe (a common misperception). I do agree that it is odd that multiple editors should come to the conclusion that I am a problem, but I am of the opinion that this has come about primarily due to the leadership of Martin Hogbin and Dicklyon, none of whom has indicated any grasp of my positions, nor has any respect for civility as a factor in reasonable discourse. Your reference to my own unflattering comments fails to note that these comments were asides on other editors Talk pages in a bid for some sage advice, and not on the Talk page of any editor commented upon, and not on the Talk: Speed of light page. The same cannot be said for your transgressions nor those of the other uncivil editors. Until you look yourself at the evidence and come to realize that you yourself are guilty of echoing serious distortions of my positions and guilty of incivility and taunt, I am not persuaded that you have the credibility to be a force in my thinking. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been quite careful not to equate you with Tombe, and have shown that repeatedly on the arbitration pages. However, you both share the trait of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and reject it all. The rest of you post is an example of the behavior that I described above. Given your opinion of me, I won't offer you any more help. I should have known better than to waste my time trying. Finell(Talk)21:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Quit bickering. My talk page is not the place to have this argument.
Brews, the 1000 word limit is universally applied to anyone presenting evidence. The reasons for this are many, but primarily so that the Arbitrators have some chance of getting through everything before Christmas. What I recommend to you is to remove as much of the text as possible and let the diffs you've provided speak for themselves. If you need to provide additional background, it should be possible to summarize on the evidence page, or you can explain in slightly more detail on the evidence talk page. If your intention is simply to respond to other editors, then it may be best to make those responses on the talk page; I've already moved several sections that were solely for that purpose there myself.
The current length of your section is within the word limit. Thank you for shortening it; if you do need to add more information and cannot find a way to make room, let me know. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Several of your comments towards KnightLago and Manning have been rather incivil. I pointed out which ones those were. My involvement here is simply to support the actions of my fellow clerks, who I believe acted correctly in their roles. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you're the other clerk. I've never had good relations with any clerk ... you guys always take a disliking to me ... I wonder why. Nothing against anything Manning's done btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I just returned from a day and evening of business appointments, so I just saw your message about my evidence a few minutes ago. Of course, I understand the word limit and will comply (I should have done a word count before I posted). It will take me awhile.
Could you tell me whether the Arbitrators generally read and consider the Evidence and Workshop talk pages?
I am not usually dense, but I don't understand the irrelevance of the sock puppet and block evasion history. An editor is blocked, repeatedly, for the same sort editing and arguing against consensus as occurred at Speed of light and its talk page and at other articles. He evades the blocks with sock puppets so he can continue his disruptive editing and BATTLEs for which he was originally blocked. Evading blocks is serious misconduct, because it undermines the effectiveness of dispute resolution remedies. During this arbitration he tells you, unabashedly and unrepentantly, that he was justified in evading the blocks and socking because he didn't think the block was fair. So, he would evade remedies in the final decision in this arbitration if he doesn't think they are fair. It seems to me that the editor's repeated defiance of blocks is relevant to (1) the editor's overall attitude toward the Wikipedia project, which Arbitrators consider when determining remedies according to the Matisse decision; (2) what remedies are necessary to protect the project from further disruption by the editor.
You pointed out in the previous message that he hasn't evaded blocks in the past year. He didn't have the opportunity. His last block before the arbitration was the indefinite block for sock puppetry and block evasion on 25 August 2008. He immediately uses 4 IP sock puppets to evade that block (irony? cynicism?) through 30 September 2008. On 9 October 2008, he's unblocked as a "last chance". So he evaded his last block until 9 days before it was lifted, and hasn't had a block to evade since.
I hope you don't mind, but I need some sleep. I'll reduce the size of the my evidence in the morning. Finell(Talk)05:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
Yes, I believe most of the arbitrators will read the talk pages, at least to see reactions to various things and other aspects of conduct.
As to the evidence, I feel as though since sockpuppetry was not an issue in this dispute, it isn't appropriate to provide evidence about it. Evidence should be limited to information about the dispute the case is about. What he may or may not do in the future is speculation, which we have asked editors to avoid doing on the evidence page. If he is blocked or banned as a result of the case, and if he does choose to evade said blocks or bans, then a different wording in the final decision isn't going to do a whole lot. Administrators and the Arbitration Committee will simply continue to enforce the provisions as best they can. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This comment by Martin Hogbin is placed in a section of Case/Speed of light where the template does not allow addition of comments. It should be stricken or moved elsewhere. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. First of all, let me apologize for not responding sooner - personal obligations called me away for the past twenty-four hours, without Internet access. I was not aware that my edit would break the template - thank you for noticing that and reverting it. I recently noticed a user posted {{helpme}} on an article, and quickly received messages from other users not to user {{helpme}} on pages other than their own user talk page, so I decided (perhaps too rashly) to update the template. In the documentation, it clearly states the template is meant for one's own user talk page; you might want to update that to give provisions for use on other talk pages as well. In the future, I will be sure to discuss all changes to high-use templates on the talk page before I make them. Thank you for notifying me of my mistake. Intelligentsium17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Request to remove abusive remark at Case/Speed of light
Headbomb is a party to the case, and free to comment on proposals. I see no issue with the edit you are linking to. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb is not listed as a party at at the Case. I have no objection to his stating an opinion; I do object to his portrayal of his own opinion as that of some majority group that has changed its mind. Brews ohare (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, his name appears fourth from the bottom of the list. You're welcome to speak to him if you have a concern, but as clerk, I see nothing actionable. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The page now entitled Day care sex abuse allegations was Day care sex abuse hysteria (the status quo historical title). The "move warrior" nicely timed it and got it locked by you. There is consensus, and there has been, "hysteria" is the commonly used term. The "mover" came out of nowhere and moved it saying "cite one example." So I found (quickly) 12 academic references and put them on the talk page. Though the consensus was clear, the moving contributor actually tried to imply all of my examples were invalid because their authors were pedophiles! Older editors on the article had also compiled previous lists of scientific references. There is no way I'm going to formally request a move to have a page put back where it clearly had been and should be according to clear consensus here (and in the scientific community). A quick read of the recent communication on the talk page would've made this clear. Though it has been a "controversial" page title, ALL the people who've familiarized themselves with the common "colloquial" term used in science of "hysteria" stand by it, and every once in a while someone comes along, says it's POV, and are clearly defeated by a majority consensus (and by reason, regardless of the consensus). Even after being clearly given 12 references and being told by two editors, this defiant User:Sturunner just waited a couple days and did it again (without any comment). Sounds a bit trollish to me....
PS Even though I will admit (and some scientists do also) that the terminology is a bit socially-loaded, it is still the term which is by far the most frequently used (and exists in the pop-culture understanding of the science).
Please see m:The Wrong Version. I'm not going to revert the page because you say yours is the correct one. As soon as I do that, the other side will come in and demand I switch it back. It rather defeats the purpose of protecting the page in the first place. Work things out and point out to me here there is a clear community consensus formed by discussion, and I may consider unprotecting the page. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I am honestly rather offended you refer me to "The Wrong Version." I know what is bound to happen in page protections (let alone linking me to that tells me what I already realize and implies—rather directly—that I'm totally absurd). That's why I tried to give as concise a recount of the events as I could, as logically and dispassionately as I could, and given that you said "seek consensus" tried to give evidence that it had already been "seeked."Custom word. Could you perhaps look at the consensus on the talk page then? And the 12 references I provided when the contributor asked for one? And the fact that the article has been at that title? Honestly, I could care less. I'll let it stay this way forever, I just thought it would be nice to have it stay consistent with Wikipedia policy (and not have it stuck in a state which seems to have been quite trollishly applied).
PS Perhaps then in hindsight it would then have been better for me to not use exclamation marks or underlines. Bold should've been out of the question too :P . . . . I clearly don't look very dispassionate, lol.
PPS And I've never moved it. The last one to move it back to where it's supposed to be was an Admin.
At the very least, could you protect the redirects to this page to point back to the last stable version at "hysteria", or otherwise disable the automatic double-redirect pointers. This is just wrong. (And "The Wrong Version" specifically does not refer to moves.)
But it's incorrect to say that there is something to work out. One editor is objecting to the consensus title at …hysteria. There have been at least 3 move discussions in the talk page, all resulting in consensus for …hysteria (most with only one editor and his sock puppets objecting) . — Arthur Rubin(talk)05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I breathed a sight of relief when I read this and felt that I wasn't the crazy lone and loose cannonball :P
I don't wish to imply that I believe this editor to be a sock puppet of the blocked editor, nor do I wish to imply that I'm sure he's not. If someone wants to bring up a checkuser (if the previous editor has IPs logged somewhere, for checks), go ahead. — Arthur Rubin(talk)05:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked through the talk page; the only recent discussion I could see on this took place a few days ago, and consisted of the two of you versus the other guy. At AfD, I'd call that no consensus. That said, I'll show this to some other uninvolved admins and get their opinions on this matter. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I also looked through the talk page and couldn't see any consensus for the title. Perhaps you could point to a specific section/area where consensus was found? That would be great. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you prefer if I went through the history of the article and re-factored all the discussion on the name into one nicely tabbed section for you to read? Then it will be clear that people come along, say "it sounds POV," get inundated with evidence that this is the popularly accepted term and that's that.... I could put all the evidence into one huge section if that would help.
No, what would help would be you pointing out which sections I should be looking at as we've asked. Please do not refactor other's comments. If you are unable to point to a section and say "the community came to a consensus here", then maybe it's time you had such a discussion. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: When I say refactor, I only meant in line with policy, which is okay (eg., WP:REFACTOR). I'm not sure why you keep assuming I really don't know what I'm doing and don't put some faith in the fact that I at least reasonably know what the rules are. This is starting to feel overly tendentious.
Part of the issue is that over 50% of the talk page is about the article's name. Some of it is quite general ("hysteria" versus something else), while other sections are quite specific, as once "hysteria" was settled upon, the concern became the very specific application of the title, for example the debate Day care sex abuse hysteria → Day care sexual abuse hysteria. I know this is clear to you guys if you just look through the page; I'm really not sure why this is becoming such an issue and we're getting so polarized ("pendulum style," which has happened a couple times tonight in different venues; I must be getting tired). The only way I can "point" you to the specifics is rewriting about 50% of the talk page. I tried above to concisely explain the reasoning, but see sections: "POV TITLE", "Sex abuse or Sexual abuse?", "Move back to original name", "POV title 2", "Title", "POV Title (again)", "Google and title", "Day Care Hysteria", "Title of article redux", "Article move", and "I merely asked for one cite from a referred social science journal." If you read through these sections you'll see there was never a consensus where everybody said "yeah, we all agree on this." This is what I think it sounds like you're asking for. The majority of the continuing debate was incited by User:Abuse truth (under multiple usernames) who was BANNED... due in part to this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor. Nonetheless, the discussions repeatedly prove (through a lot of sources) that WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipolicies are being adhered to. I don't even know what else to say. I'm too tired to continue; maybe I'll sleep and not sound so ridiculous tomorrow :) . . . .
I'm not assuming you don't know what you're doing, and I'm not sure what I've said to give you that impression. My concern here is that there is a dispute in progress involving a page-move war, which is significantly more disruptive to the project than a simple edit war. When I looked at the talk page for a consensus, I could not see that one had been formed. When I asked another uninvolved admin to take a second look, they came to the same conclusion. In looking through the talk page, this is what I see:
Talk:Day_care_sex_abuse_allegations#Title: Concurrent with above, entire section is Richard Norton and Abuse Truth arguing with each other, which doesn't constitute a consensus.
Talk:Day_care_sex_abuse_allegations#POV Title (again): Concurrent with above, two comments by two users, the fact that one of them appears to have been Abuse Truth does not mean the other person makes a consensus on their own.
Talk:Day_care_sex_abuse_allegations#Google and title: A few days after all of the above, Richard Norton, Storm Rider, and Arthur Rubin are all in favor of hysteria, Abuse Truth, Erolin, and Biaothanatoi against. No consensus.
Several sections in which Richard Norton quotes sources in support of "hysteria", but no discussion ensues...
Because after nearly a dozen discussions and three years, no clear consensus has been formed regarding the title of this article, and there is a currently ongoing dispute concerning said title, I am declining to lift protection or move the page at this time. This is a case in which several Wikipedia policies or guidelines conflict with each other; WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, and probably a handful of others (I don't care to pull them up at present, since those are the main ones involved here). As a result, you need to come to a clear consensus amongst other editors as to which one should prevail. If you wish to have the page unprotected, you may make a request at WP:RFPP - You should link here to show that you have asked me and I have declined, because you will be asked otherwise. Alternatively, you can continue with the requested move discussion currently underway, and seek a clear consensus through that process. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're counting heads, Abuse Truth was since banned for sock puppetting; if the other sock puppets were already in effect, his comments should be disregarded. Biaothanatoi may have been subject to a topic ban, including discussion pages, at the time, as well. It's hard to check. Erolin may be reasonable. The current editor opposed to "hysteria" is not, as he's moved the page 4 or 5 times. — Arthur Rubin(talk)22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you note that AT was not banned at the time. If any of his socks were banned, he should be considered as if he were banned. And Bio may have been stalking me or one of the other editors. — Arthur Rubin(talk)22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not counting heads, I have no way of checking who was and who wasn't banned at the time, and frankly accusations of stalking have nothing to do with this discussion. The fact remains that their arguments do appear to have merit; since that is what consensus is based on, that's what I'm going on. You know that as well as I do. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, they don't appear to have merit to any presently active editors but one. IMHO, they could not appear to have merit to anyone who has read the material, and is familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I have to assume that you honestly don't see it, so I'll have to let that go. Still, the claim of lack of consensus would be more credible if someone (even including the editor who renamed it) made argumements for removal of "hysteria" in the requested move section. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well that's why you're having the discussion, now isn't it? To make a consensus in place of the current lack? No, I don't have any knowledge of this field, nor care to, but that shouldn't be necessary to see a general agreement amongst editors. The last discussions on this happened two years ago; now that someone else has brought it up again, maybe we do have a more certain consensus now. The point is, that needs to be documented for situations like the current one.
I've made my decision, and I am sticking with it. Contact me in a week or so and I'll take a look at the situation again. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm the source of this. What I am asking for is only 1 cite from a reffed journal in the social or medical sciences. I happen to agree w/Arthur Rubin and others that there was tremendous prosecutorial, ah, incompetence. But that is what I think it was. The fact is that there is an undercurrent of CSA in , e.g., the RCC, the Southern Baptists, etc. that is beyond astonishing. Most of the cases mentioned in this article are the result of overcharging. I only need one small case to convict, and make the front page werever I want. And I do. Clearly, when you have a case, you do, & when you don't, you don't. All I have ever needed to take an abuser out of business is 1 case, one incedent. That is what I do--take individuals & organizations out of the CSA business. Procesicutorial misconduct, yes, hysteria? One, count it, 1 cite from a reffed journal & we could begin a meanful conversation. Sturunner (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Sturunner, thank you for your comments, however my talk page is not the place to discuss which title should be used. Please bring discussion of that nature to the article's talk page. Hersfold(t/a/c)02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since there is support for moving the page back to the original title, and no one has supported the rename on the article talk, and it is usual for controversial renames to require consensus first, could you please now restore this article to its original name. If a different consensus emerges over a longer time then that can be dealt with at that point. Verbalchat14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW Hersfold, I support both the move back, and your decision to lock the page and page move until the discussion is complete. Process is important. Thanks for your firmness - it'll result in much clearer consensus to maintain the current page. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}}
I'm very sorry Hersfold, I didn't preview my edit and it resulted in quite a terrible error on my part. WP:BARN had the wrong subst: template (corrected), I meant to use {{Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar}}. You've quite a collection so I don't know if my token token (ahahaha) is of interest to you, but if you want to add it to your awards page, my original intent was for my message to be embedded in the barnstar. Very sorry, this was a shoddy bit of work on my part for what should have been a sincere gesture of appreciation. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For standing by your decision to lock a page and wait for clear consensus, and therefore causing a clearer consensus to be established, I award yon Hersfold one (1) Barnstar. It may be displayed with pride, concealed with quite delight, or printed off and eaten. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex14:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Physchim62 has undertaken to interrupt discussion of a proposal concerning use of the one-line Edit Summary here. This interruption is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the RfC, and interferes with a normal WP process. It seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. I believe that (i) Physchim62 should be harshly reminded to keep his gibes to himself, and (ii) this comment of his should be reverted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Admin Jehochman has interrupted the RfC on WP:Civil to support Physchim62 in an unwarranted iurrelevant attack. His edit should be reverted with admonition. His action underlines a lack of objectivity on the part of Jehochman and he should recuse himself from this Case/Speed of light. This example is not the first time Jehochman has intruded to support Physchim62, as he also intervened at Physchim62's request to ban D Tombe.
Jehochman's flippant remark concerning unwarranted inflammatory attacks made on Talk pages unrelated to this case is further indication that he does not have sufficient objectivity to handle Case/Speed of light, and most probably should not be an Admin at all. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're coming to me about all this - I have no particular authority on that page, and certainly no authority to desysop anyone because you feel offended by a remark they made. If you have a concern with the edits being made here, I would suggest bringing the issue up at WP:ANI or WP:WQA for wider attention. I don't see anything here that merits immediate administrative attention; if there were, I'm sure Rd232 would have dealt with it already.
I'd also remind you that Jehochman is not an arbitrator, and even if he were he would be recused here - so if you feel he has judged you already prior to the conclusion of the arbitration case, it's completely irrelevant. Jehochman is listed as a party to the case, and so any recusal as you recommend is out of the question. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, Thanks for straightening me out here about your sphere of influence, and that of Jehochman. I'm a bit surprised that you would not undertake to tell these two to confine Case/Speed of light to Case/Speed of light, and not promulgate as facts things under deliberation, before the ruling is made. Also, on any page you certainly have the authority to recommend cooling it when guidelines like WP:Civil & WP:Talk are violated; at least Jehochman thinks so: see here & here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as an administrator (heck, as an editor), I can ask people to calm things down; I just did on another unrelated dispute. As I said, though, I don't see anything terribly actionable here. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Unhelpful comment
You blocked Roux to prevent further disruption, and I notice that the other party has added a new comment which offers a very polite statement that completely omits mention of the "liar" word that apparently led to the reaction. I'm hoping that you might think that such a statement at this time is not helpful, and you might boldly remove it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, he didn't outright say "I'm sorry for calling you a liar". But IMHO, he's clearly trying to reconcile some of the differences they've been having and apologize for some of this other actions. I'm sorry, but I really don't see the problem here. This edit was clearly made in good faith, and I don't see why I should be reverting it. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Fairness suggests you should block TT for a day or so, for NPA violations. I don't think fairness requires that he be blocked for the same interval as Roux, but I don't see evidence that he knows what he's attempting to apologize for, nor evidence that he won't repeat the violation. I admit that I agree with Roux on the substance, that the moves from "List" to "Outline" were done with the consensus only of his WikiProject, not with consensus of other WikiProjects which the articles might belong to or of editors of the individual articles. — Arthur Rubin(talk)05:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be highly inappropriate for him to be blocked now over something that happened yesterday. In any event, TT's comments were nowhere near as egregious as Roux's. If you think he should be blocked, do it yourself, that's what your sysop flag is for. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I also feel that the fact that he is attempting to apologize for anything is helpful towards the situation; he may not be willing yet to apologize for the liar incident, but what we have is a start and I don't believe it should be looked upon as an attempt of disruption. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I may not block him because I accused him of disruption earlier on some of the other Outline creation incidents, including one where the article creation was inherently biased, as it assumed the question of whether the subject was a legitimate country. — Arthur Rubin(talk)05:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You say that an apology has been issued but I'm afraid that is absolutely not correct – a statement that entirely omits mentioning the immediate cause of Roux's outburst is closer to an incitement than an apology. It is rather tame to use a term such as "liar" in the heat of battle, and only the immature would react badly to being called an "expletive expletive liar". However, it is an entirely different issue when one person deliberately and calmly calls another person a liar, and repeats, and declines to issue an apology. An assertion has been made that Roux is a person who intentionally makes statements that are known in advance to be unequivocally false. The apology was essentially "let's live and let live", with the absurd implication that it is entirely acceptable for the assertion that Roux lacks integrity to stand. I don't mind blunt language when dealing with repeat offenders like the many POV warriors, spammers and vandals we see every day, but it is entirely unacceptable for the statement that a respected editor is a liar to stand. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but as you are busy perhaps you did not notice my comment above starting "You say that an apology has been issued". I would appreciate a reply under that comment indicating that you have considered the issue (even if just to say that no further action is required). I am not looking for any dramatic action like a block, however surely some response to the situation I outlined is required. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had noticed your comment, but wasn't able to get around to responding to it. Part of the reason for the delay in responding is that I feel I've already addressed this above. TT did at least make an effort to remedy the situation in the manner he was comfortable with. The assertion that we are "letting the comment stand" is false. TT has been spoken to about this, and informed that such comments are not acceptable. This situation has been dealt with through what means we are able. Now let's please back away from the horse and get back to work. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Warning
Thank you for the warning, I will take all the criticism on board and it won't happen again. I have attempted to apologise to Roux and intend to apologise to the community on my talk page. I will also probably leave the WP:WPOOK which started this mess. Thank You and Sorry. Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In the future, please sign your comments and provide a little more context as to what you're asking; it'll usually get a faster response from whoever you're asking. Thanks.
Bushfire was not blocked for edit warring because he was restoring your removal of referenced content, a removal which was considered to be vandalism (which is what your block was officially for). Reversion of vandalism is specifically exempt from 3RR. Hersfold(t/a/c)14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither sock nor meat?
I'm replying to your note on my talk page and related comments on Workshop. First, thanks for checkuser-ing the latest IP, from which you concluded that the IP is not a sock. Second, as you may have noticed, I added that same IP to my Evidence page entry based, again, on the unlikelihood that an uninvolved anon would find the Workshop to comment there; the implication is that the anon was led there by an interested party, i.e., is a meat puppet.[1] I am sensitive to the importance of preserving an editor's right to privacy when reporting checkuer results. If you can tell me that checkuser proves to you that the IP is an identifiable user who was not led to Workshop by someone else (i.e., is not anyone's meat puppet), I will strike out my evidence statement and will comment that checkuser proves that the IP is not a meat puppet. If you can't tell me something to that effect, then I think it is appropriate to let the evidence stand as is. Or, do you have any other way to resolve my dilemma while preserving privacy? Thanks again. Finell(Talk)00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I received a communication from the person who made the edit explaining the circumstances. This is neither socking nor meatpuppetry. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll strike out the evidence. Also, I apologize for using {{Talkback}} earlier. I didn't notice, or possibly forgot, that reminder at the top of this talk page. Finell(Talk)00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Yes, you're certainly allowed to, and some IP talk pages get archived by other users simply because they get too big to manage. If you need help with archiving, WP:ARCHIVE has some instructions on how to do so. Hersfold(t/a/c)19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked the above user as a CU-confirmed sockpuppet of User:Cognition, which I'm willing to trust is the case. Seeing as how 172 is a former administrator and was a highly prolific contributor at one point, shouldn't they actually be considered the master account instead of Cognition? Master&Expert (Talk) 06:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed multiple times already; to be honest, the distinction of master/sock doesn't matter terribly much; the important thing is that they're the same as far as checkuser can tell (and we've yet to see any explanation from either user explaining why that is, so the assumption so far is that CU is correct). I marked Cognition as the master for a few reasons: firstly, that's the account that got banned first, and secondly, that's the account I was checkusering when 172 popped on the radar. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually went ahead and looked through your talk page archives and found a discussion regarding it; when I first saw that 172 was blocked, I wondered what sort of discussion took place after issuing it, it couldn't have gone without notice. Thanks for clearing that up. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, it certainly had a LOT of notice. That was the hot topic for about a week. Then another admin was caught socking and finally distracted everyone. Hersfold(t/a/c)06:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold! I think the guy got completely overwhelmed while writing his own BLP. When the AfD template went on, he took it really personally. I'll try to talk him around and maybe he could get involved in the AfD, or I could userfy his article so he can dig for sources or whatev. Would you mind if I unblocked later if he can get the message?- Alison❤07:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I told him as much, to little effect. Just prior to said legal threat I did let him know (quite politely, I thought) that if he would be civil I would consider unblocking. Hersfold(t/a/c)07:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've asked him about it on his talk page. As long as that threat is good, I'll not unblock. I've suggested he take some timeout and come back later on and re-appraise things. That's probably the best way to approach this. I don't really want to see the guy blocked while his AfD goes to completion neither, but we'll see what happens ... - Alison❤07:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Okaaay. It looks like he's rescinded any threats of legal action now. That's a major step. If he's okay on laying off the personal stuff and not warring over his AfD tag, then I think we're okay and I'd like to go for unblock. I'll try to help him out a bit until he finds his feet around here, if that's okay :) - Alison❤08:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'm about to log off for the night, so if you feel it's ok to unblock, go ahead. Good luck. Hersfold(t/a/c)08:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the deletes.
For some reason, that "ButchyKid" article keeps being recreated. Well, thanks for deleting it. In fact, here, have this:
Don't worry about it! But try to see about getting the creator of the "ButchyKid" article blocked for some amount of time. --Delta1989 (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
True, some people just don't get the "-pedia" part of "Wikipedia". I'm gonna head back to the recent changes page, maybe tag some articles that need to get speedy deleted. --Delta1989 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, around about a week ago a user named User:BlueLankan was bolcked for copywrite and was also found to be using multiple accounts. I have found a random editor who seems to be editing the same type of articles in the same way as him, if you dont mind could you check fim out, [2].
This and other similar edits seem to confirm your suspicion is correct, as does the technical evidence which also pulled up a new account, User:KicktheLION. Thanks for the tip. In the future, though, please make reports like this at WP:SPI so we have a unified record of things. Thanks! Hersfold(t/a/c)05:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
We were actually just discussing that on the clerk's mailing list. I wasn't aware that it was being given to non-admins, but since it is, I'm on my way to restore it now. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I suck with templates - if 172 has been blocked,legitimately, through ArbCom or Checkuser, could you put the proper template up on his user page? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk10:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Have a cup of coffee! Thanks for all of your hard work and assistance on the speed of light case. Your quick responses to inappropriate contributions has been invaluable in keeping the case on-track. I sincerely appreciate it. Vassyana (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
His block expires in four hours anyway. My suggestion would be to ignore him for that time. Risker is also aware of this, and we'll take action as needed. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that some administrators (you included) have ridiculously accused me of being Sbs108. I am NOT Sbs108 and the arguments made by admin that I am are wholly absurd. I was banned for exposing Mel Etitis and his Wikipedia Sockpuppet. If you look at that page, I provided a screencap that shows my IP. If you compare that IP with my IP here, you will find they are the same and they not anonymous or proxy IPs. I think it is really quite pathetic that I have to be pulled back on to Wikipedia to defend myself from stupid rumors started by conspiratorial admin who apparently have nothing better to do than play psychic instead of assuming good faith like they are supposed to do. Practice what you preach, Admin! Why don't you now perform a check user? Since I cannot make comments using my SSS108 nic, I had to create a new one. Nevertheless, this same comment was posted on my SSS108 Talk Page. If you want to talk to me, do it on my SSS108 page. Thank you. PSSS108 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Your injunction refers to "any administrator". I hope that excludes Jehochman, who is a participant. It also would be helpful if one-sided lobbying of Admins by (for example) Finell or Physchim62 were disallowed. I am concerned that petitions will be made that any discussion anywhere that can be construed as referring to speed of light is going to be protested. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The ban is fairly straight-forward; if David edits the case pages, he gets blocked for a time. I would expect Jehochman not to do so, just as I would expect any other administrator to use proper judgment in the matter. Should it be a problem, it can be dealt with at that time. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
By "proper judgment", I mean that a block of a week would probably not be appropriate, and that simple grammar corrections without adding any new content or substantially changing things would probably be best handled with a cluebat and a stern warning than a block. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
October 16 - 31
Could the SoL case finally be resolved?
Brews and Tombe going at it again, dominating the talk page of the physics project with the same old "free space doesn't really exist / the redefinition of the SoL in 1983 means the end of the world" song. If nothing is done, in a few hours the page will probably have doubled in length like everything the Brews & Tombe couple touch. Could you get the administrators to finally deliberate? The atmosphere is untennable and is incredibly harmful to the physics project. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A simple proposal has been put before Headbomb: show specifically what your objections are; put up or shut up. Instead, he is searching for Admin action. The simple facts: he hasn't a leg to stand on. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to ask ArbCom about that. I've no control over the pace of the case. I am told that we should have something up soon, however. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes well since you're the clerk I thought it would make more sense that if you asked them to deliberate. But if it's better that I do it, could you direct me to the proper page to ask this? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll send them (another) email to figure out what's going on. Unfortunately, that's about all I can do. I'd recommend posting a question on the PD talk page if you're interested in inquiring yourself; Vassyana and a few of the other arbs should have it watchlisted. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This complaint by Headbomb is probably the most unsubstantiated and barren complaint that has ever been made in the whole of human history. If a complaint like this followed for every legitimate reply to a query at WT:PHYS, the world's telecommunication lines would be totally clogged up. 'Tombe and Brews are going at it again'? You mean we attempted to answer A. di M.'s query at WT:PHYS. Is that not what WT:PHYS is all about? Is it not about the sharing of knowledge about physics? It was a similar kind of complaint by Headbomb at AN/I that was taken too seriously, that led to the whole arbitration hearing in the first place. Headbomb needs to be spoken to and warned to stop making malicious complaints. David Tombe (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that Headbomb is out to stir up trouble, not reduce it, and his attitude is geared to that purpose, involving rudeness, scorn and false allegations. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to take action in the dispute itself, so that I can continue to act as neutrally as possible in my capacity as case clerk. If you wish to lodge a complaint, please do so with someone else. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Beaufort High School - Vandalism
You gave me some helpful information a while back so I am coming to you first for advice. I came across a wiki page for; Beaufort High School in Beaufort, South Carolina. I have noticed that it has been so vandalized that fact and fiction have become intertwined. I would like to make the correct reverts but do not know how to make multiple corrections without using edit for the main article and just doing all of the edits manually.
In complex cases like this, it's easiest to go into the page history and locate the last "good" revision (the most recent one that hasn't been vandalized). Clicking on the timestamp for a revision will show you what the page looked like at that time. While looking at an old revision like this, you can edit that page and save it to return to that old revision. You'll see a big pink warning box above the edit area warning you that this is what you're about to do. Make sure to mention "revert to last good revision" or something in your edit summary. Hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)18:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Cascading protection
I have anthologised your protected items page to Wikipedia:Cascade-protected_items, to do this job centrally rather than in disparate user pages - thanks for the work yo put into creating it. Unless there's a good reason your user page should be unprotected now I guess. RichFarmbrough, 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
Oh, cool. I'll probably keep the user page up just as an extra precaution, but it's good to have a central page for this. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in becoming a clerk for WP:ARBCOM at some point, whether it be now or at a later date. I would like to be part of the process and help out because I feel that the committee is an essential element to the community. Feel free to leave any suggestions or comments on my talk page. Thanks! - 97.115.53.203 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You'll need to have an account and establish yourself within the community first - potential clerks are offered positions by the clerk corps and Committee, and we will only offer such invitations to experienced editors. Hersfold(t/a/c)19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Unfortunately, as I said, we only offer positions to highly experienced editors who are well established in the community. I can see that your account was registered back in 2007, but you've only been actively editing since August. While there's no particular guideline to required tenure, the ArbClerk position is a position of significant trust, so an editor would probably need an absolute minimum of a year's active work in order to be offered a position. Another necessity is experience in several "drama" situations, or otherwise undertaking difficult and/or unpopular but still necessary actions, and repeatedly handling them with a high level of civility and decorum, since as a clerk you would be responsible for maintaining order within your assigned cases; often a difficult task since tempers are frayed very thin by the time an issue reaches the Arbitration Committee.
Thank you for your enthusiasm and willingness, but at this time I don't feel you're experienced enough. I can let the clerk corps know you're interested (as we do keep a list of those who have expressed an interest), however I don't believe you would be offered a position for some time. Should you have any more questions, please let me know. Hersfold(t/a/c)03:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If you could add me to the list, that would be great. I assumed as much, but I mostly wanted to check because I would be interested in participating at some point. Thanks for your help! - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk•Contribs03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello... thanks for dealing with the Carljung issue. I had a feeling the account was from one of the long-term problem users I've dealt with, but I was thinking more along the lines of Serafin or EverybodyHatesChris. I hadn't considered Akraj, an account confirmed by that user to be the head of an institute in India. Said individual is determined to use Wikipedia for explicit self-promotion through an ever-lengthening series of socks and IP accounts. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy07:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not Akraj; as for who it may be, if anyone, I'm not sure, as I don't have the time nor the mental capacity to check just now. As Jehochman pointed out, however, we try to avoid linking specific IP addresses to accounts anyway for privacy reasons. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman has suggested that these proceedings be deleted following closing of the case. As I personally feel they are a testimony to the ineptitude of all concerned, I am anxious that they be preserved as evidence for future inquiry and do request that they be archived for that purpose. Brews ohare (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration case pages within the Wikipedia namespace are never deleted. They may be courtesy blanked in some cases, however that decision is left to the Arbitration Committee. As for evidence pages in userspace, I am not sure, however I believe many are MfD'd following the end of the case. I would note, however, that keeping a page as a "testimony to the ineptitude of all concerned" sounds an awful lot like an attack page that would have been better not posted in the first place.
I skimmed through the discussion you've linked, and I'm uncertain as to what all is being requested and why. I've commented there; if anyone wants something done, they can ask me directly in an area I'm likely to check. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Naively, I thought that an arbitration decision settled disputes. Is it typical for disputes to erupt on the arbitration pages right after a final decision? I'm new to this process. I believe that the services of a referee (the kind that officiates boxing matches) would be welcome. Also, I believe that Tombe violated his topic ban in the final decision, again giving his take on the impact of the redefinition of the metre upon science, here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The final analysis. Finell(Talk)06:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict): :Price said that he would stop.[5][6] No further action appears to be necessary at this time. Risker didn't do anything about Price's comments on Brews' talk page, from what I can see. Risker did shut down the discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard. Thanks for replying. Finell(Talk)01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of topic ban is itself an infraction of topic ban!!!
Hersfold: Could you kindly clarify for me the basis for intrusion by Risker and further intrusion by MBisanz into the discussion of the ban itself as a violation of my topic ban against "physics-based topics, broadly construed"? I absolutely fail to grasp how a discussion of the ban implications and propriety constitutes a "physics-based topic". Moreover, the posting of the decision on my Talk page explicitly invites such discussion and provides a link to the location to post it. Brews ohare (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe Finell's statement on your talk page is largely correct; comments by several editors were becoming problematic in that they were discussing various ways in which the topic bans could or should be ignored/circumvented/violated/etc. Advice to violate the ban using IAR as justification, offers to proxy edit, among other comments, if expounded upon, could be viewed as an attempt to breach your topic ban or the general restrictions under which you were placed. Other comments that were made by you, such as comparing the arbitration case to a lynch mob, probably did violate those restrictions. Risker's action and MBisanz's subsequent warning were intended to stop the drama by allowing everyone to step away and go back to work before any blocks needed to be handed out less than two days after the closing of the case. That's how I understand it, however the two of them may have a slightly different view on the matter. I don't speak for others. Hersfold(t/a/c)20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
User Jehochman
Jehochman has elected to interfere in my efforts to smooth out a disagreement at ANI. I have complained to him here. I am afraid that this action indicates a desire by Jehochman to insure my non-participation under pretext of my ban, not to enforce the topic ban, and I would like you to suggest that he curtail this activity. Brews ohare (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Talking about people without inviting them to the conversation is not the best way to make friends. Please don't discuss me here. I am not interested in spending my time debating with a tendentious editor. JehochmanTalk20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews, I'm sure you're fully capable of dealing with your disputes yourself. You need to stop coming to me every time you feel someone's insulted you. I'm not a babysitter. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you have improved my very very bad day. :)
Seconded, we need a "You made me snort soda through my nose" barnstar for that close. Consider yourself awarded with it. StarM21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think there was a mix-up
Pbweil (talk·contribs) exists, but you deleted their talk page as being a nonexistant user. I restored the talk page, because they do indeed exist. I think you might have wanted to delete a different page? Just leaving a note explaining things. Killiondude (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nationalistic disputes (and I include Falun Gong in this due to the Communist Party's involvement) tend to be a royal mess regardless of what's done. My only suggestion would be to continue to try and bring in more people to the project who aren't currently involved, in the hopes that with some more neutral viewpoints on the matter (people not particularly biased either way), you'll be able to bridge some of the gaps between those on the ends of the spectrum who can't agree on anything. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I've commented at the discussion you linked. Trainwreck basically means that there was no way to determine a consensus, so officially it's "no consensus, default to keep, next time let's make this go a little smoother." Hersfold(t/a/c)21:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Phew! Whatever about the way the decision fell (which I disagree with), it took a lot of fortitude to take on the job of closing it. Kudos for that, sir!! :) - Alison❤16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed that was a difficult close, and you gave good reasoning. I know this thread is for complaints, so I guess I am off topic. Chillum17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It was also seven hours early. Also, did I correctly interpret that you discounted "per x" votes as invalid? If so, does this include instances when "x" had presented a valid argument? Lara17:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Seven hours over the course of a week isn't a terribly large amount of time; I find it unlikely that things would have changed considerably between now and then. As for the "Per X" arguments, they were for the most part marked as marginal or invalid depending on the strength of the cited argument and other comments made in addition to the "per". WP:PERNOM does state that these arguments are valid for particularly strong arguments, however it also states that where reasonable counter-arguments were presented, which was true for every argument made here, personal support should also be provided. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd reverted your closure, and as I was writing a note here saying so, I got caught up in Chillum's idiocy. Apologies I couldn't be quicker. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's since been re-reverted, and I decline to reopen an AfD over the difference of seven hours. As I said above, seven hours is inconsequential over the course of seven days, and not worth process wonking over. You've clearly involved in this matter and shouldn't be making an issue over this yourself. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your conclusion, and I'm not sure I completely agree with your methods of reaching it, but you did a fine job in justifying a difficult decision. Good job. Rockpocket17:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What Hersfold said. And it was six hours early, not seven. Big deal. And although I may be perceived as being biased, being a major proponent for keeping in that AfD, leaving it open for another six hours would have made no difference in the outcome. Good sound closing rationale and thanks for the long explanation. Kudos for a difficult close and I would like to believe I would say the same if the close had gone the other way. — Becksguy (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
A determined consensus of precisely 60% could have been affected by waiting the six hours and 40 minutes remaining to reach the "at least seven days". And to clarify, the closing statement was made almost six hours to the minute, but the close took nearly 40 minutes. Lara18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
"the close took nearly 40 minutes" - Which should demonstrate that I had carefully considered all the arguments presented to make a proper closure. Hersfold(t/a/c)18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that 40 minutes to close was inappropriate. I was pointing out that while your statement was made six hours before the scheduled end time, as opposed to seven, that the close itself, which caused discussion to end, took 40 minutes. Thus, the article was closed for discussion six hours and 40 minutes early. Apologies for the confusion. Lara19:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Your closure looks thoughtful and well-defensible on the merits, after a brief read-through, but I am very disappointed that you chose to violate process for no reason at all by closing the discussion before the mandatory seven days elapsed. I'd not have expected this from an administrator of your stature and experience, I'm sorry to say. Sandstein 18:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's unlikely User:Hersfold woke up this morning and said "I'm going to 'choose to violate process for no reason at all' today." Seriously? He decided to close a deletion discussion based on its merits, not based on bureaucracy. When he believed others felt the bureaucratic "process violation" was an issue, he reversed himself and reopened the discussion. That's the sort of thing you ought to expect from "an administrator of [his] stature and experience." user:J aka justen (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate the reversion, thanks, Hersfold! Though it really should not have needed a DRV, just a talk page request. Sandstein 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)6
My respect for you, Hersfold, just went up considerably. I think you were right that the six hours was not a process violation, after all, it was on the seventh day. I have complete faith in your integrity so I agree with justen. However, maybe it's better to let controversial AfDs complete and avoid unnecessary drama. — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the close, I think that was the right thing to do. The close itself was fine, though no consensus defaulting to keep seems more plausible to me, but that's a matter of interpretation. I think it does show why closing AfDs early (particularly controversial ones) is not really a good idea. Risker pointed out that she was planning on commenting and the close initially prevented her from doing that, and her comment has now been discussed and cited by others who have commented after her. If a lot of people are watching an AfD, you can assume some are just holding off on their comments and maybe plan to weigh in before the end. Just as importantly, I think it's bad if we get into a pattern of closing "notable" AfDs early, as this can easily lead to admins trying to get the jump on a particular AfD that they very much want to close, which is somewhat problematic since there are probably other admins sitting by waiting to close as well but who are following the "one week" rule (another admin mentioned this very fact in the DRV). Personally I think admins should be aware of the exact time when an AfD opened, and the general understanding should be that no one places a "closing" tag there until 168 hours later. Obviously that time itself is not important, but it's a good thing to have the norm be that when 7 days (exactly) is up the AfD is fair game for closure, and that basically whoever ends up there first will take care of the close. There's no harm in that at all and I think it's the more equitable and less drama-filled way to proceed. Anyhow just some thoughts on situations like this in general, no worries on the specifics here and as I said I think you did well by reverting the closing, and your statement at closing was well thought out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Shankbone. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lara17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll comment later, after a related discussion on IRC I'm in no mood to comment at present; I'd probably end up saying something I regretted. Hersfold(t/a/c)18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
For me to bring a DRV about this would be about the POINTiest thing imaginable. I want nothing further to do with this nonsense. If you want DRV, do it yourself; I refuse to comment on the matter. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
When you prematurely closed the AfD you added this comment at the end:
and requesting that anyone who wishes to contest this please speak with me before going to DRV. Thank you.
I was wondering, is it customary that an editor who believes a deletion discussion should be reviewed should discuss the matter with the closing admin? If so where is that written? What would happen if an editor wasn't to speak with you beforehand? Cheers, Crafty (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's mentioned at WP:DRV. As for what would happen, I'm not sure, because many people tend to skip that step anyway - cf. McBride's reversion of the closure. Please don't refer to me by name on Wiki. Hersfold(t/a/c)19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. As for your name, you have it on your user page so I figured it was no big deal. Apologies if I've erred. Crafty (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for re-opening the AfD. Admitting error can definitely be hard, even if you don't think it's actually error and you just want the voices to go away. @harej19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Quick questions on the Rjanag arb request. I noticed a couple of formatting SNAFUs.
First, Rjanag is not listed at this point as a party. I had thought I added him originally, and of course I expect he should be listed -- is that something I should add, or would you prefer to handle?
Also, I noticed that the formatting changes after the Seresin statement (.1.1.7) to 1.1.2 ... and the subsequent statements by editors seem to have the wrong numbers. I'm guesssing (but let me know if I'm wrong) that I shouldn't touch that, but you may wish to. Finally, am I supposed to do something so that my responses appear as sub-headings? I thought I followed the arb directions, but that didn't happen. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You'd put Rjanag's name in the section, but it was left in as part of a comment, so never appeared. It's fixed now.
The problem with the headers was that you, and everyone following you until Ncmvocalist, was using a level 4 header instead of a level 3. I've fixed this as well.
Thanks from Sydney, Australia, for the URL unblock and especially for the feedback. I edit what I hope are usually uncontroversial subjects, but physician in particular attracts a lot of vandalism and I try to patrol it frequently. As it turned out, someone else undid what I had wanted to undo when inadvertently blocked.
Cheers, and thanks again --DavidB 01:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
RfArb
I did something rather stupid at the RfA for Rjanag--I struck it out, but if you would refactor I would be very grateful and much less embarrassed, DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Because even if tainted by a small technicality and still disputed, your analysis of that hotly debated AfD was one of the best I've seen ever, and your thorough rationale was a shining example of how admins should weigh AfD discussion. You did a wonderful job, don't let yourself down for the subsequent discussion. I thank you for your work. Cyclopiatalk12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a shame we tossed out a quality closure with good rational and basis in policy because it was a few hours early only to get a much lower quality result. Hopefully people will learn not to throw away good decision due to a technicality from this, the next one may not be so good. Keep up the good work here. Chillum14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just trying to verify whether or not there is a current ArbCom injunction pertaining to reversions on Scientology or Scientology-related articles. I know there was one, and we've been having an issue with an editor who continues to remove a paragraph from the Jenna Elfman article pertaining to her sitting on the board of directors for a Scientology-related museum. Editor contends it's a fringe cult and not philanthropy. I personally don't care one way or another, except that the content is sourced and the editor is new to the article. Information about the status per ArbCom would be helpful. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all Scientology-related articles are subject to article probation - "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation." You can look up general sanctions such as this at Wikipedia:General sanctions, and if you feel some sort of enforcement is needed, you can make a request at WP:AE. If they're new to the area, you may want to just try to explain things to them. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll post a link to your response at the article talk page. I'll note the editor, who isn't new to Wikipedia, but is to the article in question, basically called me a liar when I noted the ArbCom injunction. I'll give him one more opportunity to check on this and stop POV editing. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The nature of the vandalism by all of them, after the first 2 quickly reverted examples, is quite similar, so it may be one individual or group. With the exception of one unrelated, innocuous edit by 165.82.84.121 on 17 September 2009, the only edits by these IPs are the vandalism of this article. All the IPs have been warned; 128.113.196.208 was blocked upon my request. The 128 ... IP address are registered to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 165 ... is registered to Haverford College. I can't fathom why this article would be the target of this volume of vandalism. Can checkuser tell you more about these IP addresses, and possibly a connection with registered Wikipedians?
Does Wikipedia have a policy about notifying colleges when their networks are being used for vandalism?
The article was created by Vaxelrod(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who created that user account just before saving the article (I should welcome this new editor). That account's only edits are to this new article and to link the article from Euclid. Can you use checkuser to see if the vandals are connected in some way to this editor?
I requested semi-protection for the article.
I didn't mean for this to be so long. Thank you. —Finell(Talk)01:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)
I'd prefer that sockpuppetry/checkuser requests be made at WP:SPI for record keeping purposes. Without evidence to support that the author of the article would also be vandalising it, I don't see a need for a checkuser investigation to be made here.
Thanks, I'll do that. I didn't mean to to suggest that the author is the vandal, but rather that the vandal(s) may be acting out some real-world grudge against the author. —Finell(Talk)03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok... unless there's a particular account you have in mind for the sockmaster, any checkuser request will be declined as fishing. Hersfold(t/a/c)03:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your help with that. I'm sure when I get more blocks under my belt I'll figure out how those unblock things work.
Now I understand where I saw your name before. I meant to tell you that I thought your DS close was a very good one, nicely detailed, although I disagreed about the discounting of the "per so-and-so" !votes. I think they entirely depend on what so-and-so said. Anyway, thanks again! JohnWBarber (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
