Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Cla68

I just happened upon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARaul654&diff=306075595&oldid=305903815 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654 talk page today which might indicate that Raul range blocked some innocent IPs. That led me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby#Report_date_August_3_2009.2C_21:58_.28UTC.29 page of investigation into meatpuppetry for an account called "Scibaby". I've http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStephan_Schulz&diff=305997763&oldid=305029514 that there seems to be great concern among a small group of editors who mainly edit the Global Warming articles about this "Scibaby." What's going on here? Are their fears justified? Are they going overboard in protecting the 'pedia from this "Scibaby?"

Posted by: One

Until recently (that is, until http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Concern_about_excessive_rangeblocks), there were about twice as many Scibaby rangeblocks as there are now. Raul654 has apparently not been happy about so many of them being removed. Over 1 million addresses were blocked, over 1/4000 of all available IP addresses.

To put this in perspective, there were more IPs hard blocked due to Scibaby than any other alleged person.* More than Grawp, more than Amorrow, and Scibaby is not even a vandal. Consider also the type of material Scibaby adds. His characteristic addition is about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_47#Contribution_of_livestock_flatulence_to_global_warming. Scibaby is generally dismissive of man-made global warming, and some of his alleged edits have been imitated by GoRight who is a skeptic himself. Raul654 claims that this is meat puppetry.

I tend to think that sharing the same POV as a banned user is not MEAT. But what say you, Cla68? After all, you're supposed to be a meat puppet of WordBomb, right?


*I say "alleged" person because some doubt that Scibaby--who geolocates to several regions in the US--could be a single person. For the sake of argument, I assume that there is one master villain Scibaby as opposed to several unrelated skeptics, but it doesn't seem to justify the amount of collateral damage caused.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I've always thought that Raul's obsession with Scibaby was overblown. He's never been terribly bright with Checkuser, but he has enough social wank for even pretty serious incompetence to be ignored. It can't hurt that he has been actively suppressing a point of view inconsistent with the Wikipedia house POV; Wikipedia clearly endorses anthropogenic global warming, and has a long history of suppressing dissent to this view.

Wikipedia apparently hasn't figured out that "NPOV" doesn't mean "the most popular point of view held by Wikipedia's administrators".

Posted by: Milton Roe

That just serves to remind me that somebody really should do something about WP:MEAT. IT's a vague policy that really doesn't know what it wants to be, or else doesn't dare say it. No attempt to clarify it has resulted (so far as I know) in anything other than gross ethincal problems being exposed in either the new policy or the proponent of same, or both. Vagueness is needed as a drape for basic unfairness.

I wish there was a WP template tag that you could slap on policy sections, and which said something like:

Is there anybody here really wants to formally stand up for this turkey of an idea? Speak up now, as this thing is PRODed..

But there isn't. If you did PROD or delete it with the summary "Stupid policy which nobody will defend," you'd be reverted as disruptive, and invited to argue it on the TALK page. If you do argue it on the TALK page, nobody will answer you.

Posted by: dtobias

They always need some bogeymen to get all hysterical over, and WordBomb and Brandt are too "old hat" these days.

Posted by: Cla68

I'll do the rest of my talking about this on-wiki.

No, check that. I just went through the archives of ArbCom decisions to find one related to this Scibaby situation and couldn't find one. How is it that such questionable use of checkuser and admin actions has been going on for so long without any kind of ArbCom ruling on it? How is that Scibaby and anyone who is believed to be him can be banned so easily?

I was going to find the applicable case then request a motion that ordered Raul654 to cease and desist with any further actions related to Scibaby, but couldn't find a related case. I'm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654 here to the pertinent discussion for reference. Have there been any RfCs on Raul's actions regarding this issue?

Posted by: Somey

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553&oldid=304272621#On_the_general_issue_of_range_blocks is interesting, containing a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Rangeblocks, as well as one or two other ways to get to the same basic information. I'm afraid curiosity got the better of me, and sure enough, there's still a rangeblock in there for good ol' Lir, 129.67.134.0/24, which hasn't appeared in WR's database for over 3 years.

Has Raul654 come down on one side or the other regarding the flagged revisions issue? He certainly hasn't been out front about it, and if he has any stated position at all, I don't quite remember what it is.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

The view that evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea of human-driven global warming is somewhat more than a "Wikipedia house POV". NPOV, both as presently written and under any reasonable re-write, supports that articles on the subject of global warming should be written from that perspective.

Global warming deniers aren't quite as cockamamie as "intelligent design" advocates (those who claim to be arguing it from a scientific perspective, I mean - I have no problem at all with people who acknowledge that their support for ID rests entirely on faith), they're alike in that most members of both categories start from a conclusion that they find convenient and work backwards. On content issues, the assorted "pro-science cabals" are almost always in the right.

(Though I'm probably biased by the fact that http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/List_of_prominent_skeptical_Wikipedia_editors.)

Posted by: Somey

As much as I hate to come down on the side of GW/Climate-Change deniers, I'm not sure that's entirely fair - ID supporters always work backward from their conclusion, because there's really no other way to make their argument. But quite a few GW skeptics, such as the late Michael Chrichton, were actually reasonably respectful of the scientific method (even though he was really just a sci-fi author, not a climatologist).

There were some discoveries made just a few years ago (2002-2003, I think?) that were said to put the kibosh on a lot of the GW skeptics' most usable arguments, but that isn't really all that long ago... I also suspect a lot of people are still getting grief for statements and such they made back in the 80's and 90's, espousing positions they may have since abandoned.

That has little to do with User:Scibaby, though, whoever he is.

Posted by: Cla68

I might open another thread on the current situation with the Global Warming articles in Wikipedia at a later date if no one else does first. I just meant this thread to be about this Scibaby account and the reactions to it, which appear to be ridiculously over the top.

Posted by: tarantino

I pondered something similar last December in the "People who refuse to equally protect BLPs" thread -

Posted by: Shalom

I have known the Scibaby situation since March 2008. Raul654 blocked an innocent user, CreepyCrawly, as a Scibaby sock. After literally about seven hours of research I succeeded in convincing him to unblock, but I did not managed to get the "Sorry, you are actually innocent" from Raul654 that he should have proffered. See endless discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CreepyCrawly There is additional material in my userspace, since deleted, which supports my conclusion that Scibaby and CreepyCrawly are two different people.

Based on several qualitative criteria, I can reasonably conclude that all the other Scibaby sockpuppets until March 2008 actually are from the same individual. Whether that has changed is not worth looking into.

Raul654 was sharply criticized in May 2008 for full-protecting about ten global warming articles against a concerted attack by Scibaby socks. It was discussed on the Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents, and the community resoundingly spoke out against what they considered an excessive use of force. I wrote on Raul654's talkpage to commend him for what I considered the right decision, but he did not respond. In the ANI discussion, Raul654 expressed frustration at spending hours hunting down Scibaby socks, only to see new ones continue to pop up, and he told everyone that he was done with fighting a worthless battle, and if they cared they could deal with it on their own. Of course, like many folks who are heavily invested in an ongoing effort, Raul654 did not stay away from the Scibaby fight for excessively long, and I understand he is still involved. I find it remarkable that Scibaby himself would still be active after such a long time.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The "meatpuppet" policy is used whenever an administrator wants to ban someone for supporting an undesired point of view, but cannot find any legitimate reason within policy. All that has to be done is to show that undesired person A has, at some time, edited any article in any way that might be arguably similar to any other editor who has previously been banned. The proof does not need to have any legitimate basis and often involves a bogus analysis of "writing style" (e.g. the editor uses semicolons, or certain words that are declared to be "unusual", but which do not stand up to a serious statistical linguistic analysis, not that anyone at Wikipedia would know what that is anyway).

Pellegrini is and always has been adamantly opposed to flagged revisions.

See, that's exactly not what Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires. NPOV (assuming one believes in it) requires that the article author acknowledge dissent from the "majority" position even when that dissent is unfounded in science, if the dissent is held by a substantial minority of those people having an opinion on the matter and if the form of that dissent can be reasonably elucidated. For the purpose of NPOV as defined by Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are complete crap; all that matters is that they exist and can be expressed in some coherent form, and that some reasonably-sized fraction of the population believes in or espouses them. In the specific case of global warming, this means that an NPOV-compliant article must feature the anthropogenic theory most prominently, but must acknowledge the presence of dissent and give the dissenting theories attention proportionate to the degree they command belief and support in the population. It does not permit for the article to be written as if anthropogenic global warming is established, unchallengeable fact.

Please note that I am not arguing against anthropogenic global warming (of which I am quite reasonably convinced), nor am I arguing in favor of Wikipedia's NPOV policy (which fundamentally reflects a very juvenile and naive understanding of what knowledge is).

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

I disagree. NPOV (the Wikipedia version) requires that articles reflect the views espoused by reliable sources. It allows for the possibility that not all reliable sources should be treated equally, and that some sources are weightier than others. If (as probably is not quite the case) all respectable scientific journals are reporting that anthropogenic global warming is extremely likely to be occurring, it is not required to give viewpoints equal treatment just because an equal number of Texan editorial writers are arguing the opposite.

I think the mistake you're making is in equating "population" with "reliable sources".

Here I agree. But it does permit the article to be written as though the existence of AGW is a consensus view in the scientific community, even as not all of the American public is convinced. Because that's accurate.

(I'm not necessarily arguing in favour of Wikipedia's version of NPOV either, though I think it would function somewhat better if people didn't pretend NPOV was a binary, black and white phenomenon, as is often done on Wikipedia.)

Posted by: EricBarbour

This was from last year.

You will never get a useful reply. Pellegrini is usually a good admin. But when he decides he doesn't like something or someone, nothing can change his little mind.

He is one of the most toxic, arrogant senior admins Wikipedia has, and he is popular enough to have backup in disputes like this. You will not find much serious discussion about this massive rangeblocking, except dismissive crap about Scibaby. Raul can be as smug of an asshole as he wishes, because another senior admin will step up and defend his bad decisions.......(well, IF it involves an aggressive on-wiki pest like Scibaby. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25520, he just looks like an ass.)

Just more proof that Raul's aggressive opposition to flagged revs and/or global semi-protection is foolish, irrational and ultimately wasteful.

Thatcher and Connolley are the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive157#User_hit_by_Scibaby_rangeblock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive430#User:Raul654_and_indefinite_full_protection_of_10_global_warming_related_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive181#Community_review_of_User:Raul654.27s_block_of_User:GoRight Raul in this. Ask them.
Better yet, try asking Scibaby why he's doing this idiocy.......

And furthermore, one of those AN/I threads has a nice little example of Raul's ability to be a stupid asshole to anyone. Even people who later ended up on Arbcom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive430#Semi-protection_for_now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive181#Is_Raul654_per_our_standards_.22involved.22_on_global_warming_articles.3F


Wikipedia is sick, okay? OKAY?......

Posted by: Somey

Y'know, that's what I thought, but I couldn't find anything to link to. Thanks for that!

Of course, now that we've established that, I'd have to say that he really has no legitimate right to complain about Wikipedia's lack of adequate features for dealing with "long-term abuse" by any particular person.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I accept this statement with the caveat that Wikipedia has no meaningful definition of "reliable" or any meaningful way to evaluate the "reliability" of sources, so this ends up being a proxy for popularity all the same. A theory for which there is no well-documented exposition (no source, reliable or not) will obviously garner little space. However, a theory which is widely believed, and thus well-documented in a wide array of sources, deserves at least some coverage even if the arguments for that theory are only published in supermarket tabloids, crank journals, and Bible study guides, if nonetheless forty percent of the population appears to ascribe to that theory.

The problem with the "reliable source" issue is that no source is "reliable" or "unreliable". Rather, a source is reliable (or not) for a specific claim. My blog is wholly unreliable as to claims about Russian domestic policy, but quite reliable as to claims about my personal beliefs. timecube.com is entirely unreliable for claims about physics, but is reliable (to the extent that it is comprehensible) as to what Time Cube Guy claims to believe in.

Wikipedia has often toyed with (and continues to toy with) rules declaring certain classes of sources categorically reliable (e.g. major newspapers, scientific journals) or unreliable (e.g. blogs, MySpace, Wikipedia Review); this is a labor in stupidity, but Wikipedia is inordinately fond of such activities.

Here's a http://docs.google.com/View?id=dccrfr75_25fjftxdhf from the Wikipedia admins channel from back in 2006 when Pellegrini was on a rampage against stable versions. At the time I shared this log with various others, I characterized Mark's objections as "I don't like it" and "It doesn't fit with how I want Wikipedia to be".

It's possible he's changed his tune in the past three years. Yeah, right.

Posted by: sbrown

Of course it isnt but youll never get abusive admins to behave otherwise.


Yes thats what often passes for technical evidence. They should appoint a few statisticians as checkusers.


That would require some knowledge of the subject which is verboten under WP rules. Youd have to produce a reliable source that some sources are better than others.

Posted by: One

That's weird to me. Most people opposed to flagged are open editing fundamentalists. Raul654 is clearly not one of those: he can lock down multiple IP ranges before breakfast. In this IRC he seems to dislike the concept... because stable articles share the same path and would encourage article ownership? This from the guy who once tried to full protect ten GW articles in their preferred untainted form?

I don't understand. Flagged seems like a good solution to Scibaby.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Ah, well, flagged revisions would be a good way of preventing Scibaby from adding edits about cow farts. But it could also be tremendously abused, for example, if only AGW true believers had permission to approve revisions.


If you this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive181#Community_review_of_User:Raul654.27s_block_of_User:GoRight link is me supporting Raul, you didn't read it right.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Granted, this part isn't supportive.

But there's also this, which isn't quite clear.

My point is: Raul has shown a gross tendency towards arrogance and intolerance
in such disputes. Pointing out your "Quis Custodes" essay is fine, but most people's
eyes would glaze over whilst reading that. Meanwhile, Raul gets away with being a dick.

Why don't you upbraid Raul a bit more forthrightly, instead of being so passive?
CHL clearly does it, and yet I don't see other admins supporting him.
That's the basic point I was trying to make. Wikipedia is sick, partly because
pushy short-tempered people like Raul can "get away" with things......

Posted by: Kato

I've always maintained that Raul is the anti-Wikipedian. He is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each of the non-negotiable tenets. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Posted by: everyking

He also seems to be single-handedly responsible for the purported policy against semi-protecting the featured article of the day. Instead of just locking the door at night (since nobody really ought to be going in the building at that hour without special permission), Raul would prefer to stand guard just inside the door the whole time, prepared to beat the living daylights out of any suspicious looking person who opened the door. I think a big part of it, although maybe not consciously, is that he just thoroughly enjoys the pursuit and beating of suspects and doesn't want some practical technical measure to keep him from having his fun.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Part of the reason that Pellegrini gets away with so much is his iron control over the featured article of the day. If you have any hopes whatsoever of getting your prize article on the front page (and what self-important encyclopedia editor doesn't?), you know that you have to keep yourself in the good graces of the Almighty Featured Article Director For Life. Pellegrini's self-appointed role gives him a lot of power and forces a lot of people to suck up to him, which he, of course, just eats up.

Jimmy is a sleazeball, but at least he seems to listen to you when you talk to him. Pellegrini is an alligator: all mouth, no ears. Easily the most annoying person I met at Wikimania 2006, and that's saying something considering that Jtkiefer was there.

Posted by: Moulton

Actually, there is something wrong with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25642&pid=188003&st=40&#entry188003.

Doubleplusungood, it teaches the wrong lesson to the starving children of Africa.

Posted by: Cla68

I didn't mean for this thread to be a list of grips about Raul, because he isn't the only one holding a torch over this Scibaby account. I think most of Raul's decisions about running the main page are fine, and, like Kato, I don't mind autocratic control as long as there is a mechanism to turn it off if necessary. I'm not afraid of Raul retaliating against me for griping about his and others treatment of this Scibaby issue, I currently have a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests#September_12 for an article (did I make the request because I feel self-important or because I think it's an interesting topic that others might want to read about? Probably a little of both, right?), and I expect Raul to put it on the main page if it isn't replaced by a higher "pointing" article.

I think Eric's point is valid, in that, why is CHL the only prominent admin who has said something about this lately? Why hasn't the arbitration committee told Raul, WM Connolley, and, Stephen Schulz to back off of this Scibaby crusade? Reverting any edit they don't like as a "Scibaby edit" and blocking the entire IP range of the University of Colorado's science department are just absolutely ludicrous. Someone who can do so needs to stop it. Do I need to go through the motions of opening an RfC or making an ArbCom request?

Posted by: RMHED

If you should ever meet him again then you'd be doing humanity a favour if you booted him in the balls, make sure you're wearing steel toe cap shoes mind.

Posted by: Abd

Scibaby was blocked by William M. Connolley first, after WMC had been edit warring with him, as I recall. Then the alleged sock that Scibaby was accused about was, some months later, blocked by [[wpu]Raul654[/wpu] for some reason, then again as indef, because some socks had been discovered. The socks came very late in the game, this is a quite clear example of the m.o. of the cabal: insult a naive editor, and tag-team revert him. Then block him if he responds in kind. And if he does the obvious when one is an isolated editor being tag-teamed, you can ban him and make an entire industry out of playing Whack-a-Mole with his socks.

Because Raul654 has so blatantly mooned the jury in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley, and he has claimed, based on one effing revert I made, that I'm a meat puppet for Scibaby (I don't even agree with the Scibaby POV, I'm not at all a global warming skeptic, the opposite), it's possible that Raul could be sanctioned out of this RfAr. I may put up some proposed findings, etc, but it's awfully difficult with the cabal jeering. ArbComm will, I'm sure, factor for that, but it can be quite difficult in real human politics. I expect that ArbComm will start drafting results soon.

On the other hand, ArbComm may decide to focus narrowly, which wouldn't surprise me, I might even recommend it. However, enough material and attention has been generated that an RfC is possible, and from there to ArbComm is a simple step.

(Theoretically, there should be other steps before that, there must be some attempt to "resolve the dispute." But because all this is before ArbComm right now, there is an opportunity. I do think it would not be difficult to get cert on an RfC, though. GoRight certainly tried!)

Anyone confronting Raul had better be prepared for the cabal piling in, big time. Until and unless the cabal is defanged. If I survive the RfAr, those teeth will have been dulled a bit, if not, they will have been sharpened.

Posted by: tarantino

Look again at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Concern_about_excessive_rangeblocks that CHL mentioned. What appeared to have happened was, there was a long discussion of the subject on functionaries-l and Raul654 did not participate. Frustrated by his lack of response, Newyorkbrad brought it to the drama board with the help of Fred, Bastique, FloNight and Thatcher. Raul could not as easily ignore this, so he showed up and whined a lot.

We'll see if this results in any long term modification of behavior. It seems unlikely.

Posted by: Kato

Here's a great solution....



I'd love to hear that conversation between the Wikipedio and the ISP.

ISP: What has this guy done that we should remove his internet access?

Wikipedio: He's been creating accounts on Wikipedia to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syndemic&diff=prev&oldid=303065735 from science and healthcare articles, and has an alternative view of global warming.

ISP: gasp

Posted by: Cla68

OK, I stand corrected. Some action has been taken lately by some people who can do stuff. I hope somebody follows-up on it and makes sure something definite gets done.

Note that most people said to remove the rangeblocks and ask for volunteers to watch the global warming articles. That seems more reasonable to me than blocking the University of Colorado's science department.

Posted by: everyking

So are you saying you mind? Because in this case, there is no mechanism to turn off the autocratic control. He simply appointed himself and operates regardless of whether people approve or disapprove. Almost everyone agrees that the main page FAs should be semi-protected, but Raul refuses to allow it.

Posted by: Derktar

Haha, this guy is a devious mastermind!

Posted by: One

...Uncanny.

EDIT: Oh, I see that FloNight explained that. Yes, Raul seemed to notice and participate when the ranges started being unblocked. I think it will be somewhat more normal in the future--which is about damn time.

Posted by: Somey

Apropos of nothing, the article on Count Iblis (T-H-L-K-D) on Wikipedia is longer than the articles for some countries.

He was a terribly devious character on the original Battlestar Galactica series, but what really surprises me is that there's no user account for John Steed (T-C-L-K-R-D) on WP, even though that was the more famous role Patrick MacNee role by far. There's no Emma Peel (T-C-L-K-R-D) account either... Maybe if they'd named the show The Revengers, they would have appealed more to Wikipedians!

Posted by: Cla68

If Raul screwed up and enough people wanted to remove him from his position, it would happen. First, however, I think people would want to be sure that his replacement would be someone who could run the main page as reliably as he does. The main page management isn't perfect, but it's working. Remember, if it isn't broken...

I'm ambivalent about semi-protecting the FA of the Day article. I think around five articles that I was the primary editor of have been on the main page. A couple of them got torn to shreds and took a few minutes of work to restore, but for the most part they survived their day in the spotlight ok.

Posted by: Moulton

Yet another instance of lunatic social drama.

Posted by: Grep

But leading to hilarity at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop where it is proposed that Raul be given a mentor in range-blocking.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Another Wikipedia idiocy: the idea that mentoring can cure any problem.

Posted by: Cla68

Again, Wikipedia is a volunteer organization. It needs dedicated volunteers to progress and survive. If a dedicated volunteer runs off the rails, then some kind of remedial action needs to be taken to bring them back on line, because who knows if they will be replaced by someone as dedicated and dilligent? Does mentorship work? If it doesn't, then Wikipedia is probably in trouble because it seems to be running low on dedicated volunteers who don't cause any trouble.

Posted by: Angela Kennedy

Hey Folks! It's the Wikipedia Truth versus Verification Trumps game! ™

All you have to do is guess which is Truth, which is Verification, for these five simple subjects. And also decide which 'reliable sources' trump the others in reliability. And whether Wikipedia follows its 'verification not truth' mandate, or vice versa. Oh yes, and whether 'pro-science' is pro-truth, pro-verification, or subject to one or t'other depending on when it suits them -'teh science people' that is.

Oh- you're not sure how to tell who are 'teh science people'? don't worry, they're the people who tell you they are 'teh science people', the 'pro-science' people. By virtue of calling shotgun- these are the definitive science people. Anyone else is not.

And it shouldn't take you long either! All you have to do is read the article pages, the references (for which you will need access to millions of articles), the article talk pages and some of the user talk pages. You also need to define a definitive and accurate (ooh- dare I say 'reliable?) sliding scale of what is 'popular', 'respected' (which is more respected than another), 'peer-reviewed' (not as easy as you thought!) 'authoritative'.

The winner gets to define what is to pass for definitive knowledge, forever.

Here's the five:

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Lyme disease
Blondes (especially sexual selection of)
Universal Beauty
Neuro-linguistic programming

These five are ad hoc (though not random).

Commendations given for any other topics on Wikipedia that will give similar amounts of hours and hours of fun as the above four.

Good luck!

Take some paracetemol before you start.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

You'll get no dissent from me on the idea that Wikipedia's conceptualization of "neutral point of view" (either Jimmy's original idea or the twisted nonsense it's been mutated into by now) is a fundamentally unworkable idea for a general encyclopedia. I've long been convinced that the appropriate way to deal with contentious issues is multiple concurrent articles, but Wikipedia has an axiomatic belief in "one truth, one article", and that axiom is simply not up to discussion.

It's really quite a shame that what could have been a noble venture was brought into being by such an intellectual lightweight, and thereby crippled with an extremely naive theory of knowledge.

Posted by: Grep

I looked at the AN/I case where Raul was defending his rangeblocks. Curiously as soon as Tiptoety unblocked a few ranges, Scibaby is said to have turned up on them. So either Scibaby is is clever enough to see the unblock instantaneously and stupid enough to use that range immediately afterwards, or maybe, just maybe, it isn't Scibaby at all. Who would be interested in making Tiptoety's unblock look silly? Step forward - er - Raul himself. Is it at all possible that Scibaby is Raul's evil twin, and that Raul, who seems to have an uncanny insight into Scibaby's activities, is actually popping up the "socks" himself in order to knock them down again and thereby justify awarding himself extraordinary powers to block at will?

Posted by: One

Or maybe Scibaby can read ANI?

Posted by: Grep

But how would she get the information on the ranges unblocked? Only a serving admin could do that ...

In any event, why would she need to use the ranges immediately? If she's prepared to mature her socks over time, she is presumably also prepared to wait until the AN/I discussion is over before taking advantage of the new ranges.

Posted by: One

Have you heard of the block log? It's public.

I don't deny that it's an amusing theory, but I don't think it's the most likely explaination for the evidence.

Posted by: Grep

Ah, that's handy. Could you provide the link please? (Purely in the interests of research, you understand.)

Meanwhile, I see at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Scibaby that Raul has determined that all new users on global warming articles are Scibaby sockpuppets, is not true, but a large percentage of them are. Just ban them all, I say.

Also at that page, Raul wags his finger: When certain specific behaviors by Scibaby have been mentioned publicly, he has changed those behaviors. Therefore, admins should absolutely avoid publicly discussing specific techniques and methods for detecting him. Go on -- you know you want to really.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Look, people, Pellegrini is an idiot. We all know this. He should stick to what he does know (which, I believe, is microelectronic design), and leave social engineering to people who have some sense.

I also doubt that Pellegrini is evil-twinning Scibaby. I've met the man: he's simply not capable of pulling that off without bragging about it to somebody. Now, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that one of the people he brags about his exploits to is Scibaby, though; he routinely gloats about his Scibaby-smashing exploits on IRC, and I'd not be the least bit surprised to find out that Scibaby monitors that, too. Like I said, Pellegrini is an idiot.

Posted by: everyking

He gloats? As far as I can tell, he's like a guy trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, missing every time but knocking a big hole in the wall every time he takes a swing. What's there to gloat about?

Posted by: One

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&limit=5000&hideaddressblocks=1&hideuserblocks=1 Individual rangeblocks can be looked up via the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A68.26.0.0%2F16&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=. But don't tell anyone I told you about this, because they might kick me off of ArbCom for telling non-Arbs!


Actually, I'm surprised that Scibaby doesn't change certain characteristic behaviors more quickly (like signing up for new accounts while still signed in--which for about a year was publicly discussed as one of the surest ways to identify him). Maybe he was just too lazy to log out. I dunno.

Scibaby is not exactly Einstein. Half the time when he makes it past Raul and ripens a sock enough to edit GW, he adds extremely characteristic text (for example, about cow emissions) that gets him instantly banned and reverted. In the meantime, he makes a bunch of token gnoming edits that Raul sometimes cites as alarming evidence of the Scibaby peril.

Posted by: RMHED

Raul needs Scibaby and Scibaby needs Raul. They justify each others existence, it's a beautiful symbiotic relationship. I just hope they don't procreate.

Posted by: MZMcBride

There's also Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks. It's not dynamically updated (it updates weekly), but it can be helpful to see the block reason, etc. in bulk.

Posted by: Abd

In all this, nobody seems to have looked at the origin of the Scibaby mess. When Raul654 threatened to block me for meat puppetry because I reverted a reversion of his of a new editor on User talk:GoRight, basically a huge flap over nothing, I decided to look. It's a little tricky. I wrote on my Talk page what I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd/Archive_13#Proxying_for_banned_users I find it entirely unclear. Reasonable assumption but not proven -- no checkuser -- that Scibaby equals Obedium, but there is another possibility, a shared account that later split. Scibaby was blocked by WMC for sock puppetry, I think in September, 2007, but the alleged sock, Obedium, wasn't blocked until months later. Obedium was blocked for edit warring, but kept on chugging for a while. Deep into December, it looks like Obedium, assuming we trust checkuser, set up a series of socks. It's a natural thing to do when face with tag teaming. But Obdeium had been blocked by Raul654 before the socking was found. At the time, both Raul654 and WMC were clearly involved with Global warming.

The big problem is that a good block by an involved administrator is a bad block, because it is going to be perceived as biased and unfair. A certain percentage of blocked editors are then going to get even. It's become a game, and they learn how to play it, Wikipedia becomes a battlefield, and the involved administrators are just as much treating it that way as the banned editor. (But was Scibaby ever banned? Not per WP:BAN, except under that "nobody is unwilling to unblock theory" which is ban by default." Regardless, the long-term struggle is the result of the ready use of raw power in place of a welcoming consensus and a community that uses blocks and bans as a truly last resort. My guess is that the article wouldn't be *much* different than it is if we actually went for maximized consensus instead of the view of NPOV and UNDUE of the Majority POV-pushers. The majority is a majority for a reason, usually. (Sometimes the majority is wrong, but that's not the norm.) However, it would be far easier to maintain.

Posted by: One

Scibaby is an interesting case. If he only used a single account, it's doubtful he would have to be blocked. Maybe his original block was bad, but his subsequent simultaneous socking demonstrates game playing, and we shouldn't tolerate that.

Perhaps he could appeal to ArbCom and voluntarily agree to give up all sock games for say, three months. If he completed that, maybe he could be restored to a single account with the understanding that he would be monitored for abusing SOCK (by actual uninvolved admins). I think keeping him to one account would be infinitely preferable for everyone than trying to fight with rangeblocks.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Whatever do you mean? He never misses!


Ah, the competence of the people "elected" to serve on Wikipedia's High Kangaroo Court.

Dude, it's so obvious that Scibaby is trolling Wikipedia generally, and Raul specifically, that you have to be willfully blind not to see it. Scibaby hasn't been trying to insert whatever his point of view is (if he ever was, which is itself dubious, given how silly it is) for years. Instead, he's playing an elaborate game with y'all (especially Raul). And, apparently having a great deal of fun with it. That you can't see this indicates that you're not fit to be involved in the running of any website that has community participation, as the Internet is rampant with such trolls.

Scibaby will never give up his sock games; that's his entire reason for interacting with Wikipedia anyway. He might pretend to do so for a while, just to toy with you, but he's certainly not going to do it, not now. The only way you'll be rid of Scibaby is if he gets bored and moves on, or he gets run over by a bus one day. Or, just maybe, one of you figures out who he really is and offers him a really big bribe to go away.

Posted by: One

Thanks for the advice. Both sides of that dispute treat him as if he's a sincere POV pusher,so it's hard to break from that mindset.

Assuming he's brighter than Raul seems to think he is, he's clearly a troll. Writing about cow farts is fun and all, but it's probably even more fun getting Sprint PCS blocked from Wikipedia because of cow fart edits.

Posted by: Milton Roe

If cows are intrinsically funny, then cow farts must be another step in that direction. And if cow farts cause glaciers to melt (look it up), then that's even better. It's all part of the great cycle of life.

Cow eructition demands cow erudition. But it's not as good a joke. Humor and comedy definitately is distilled in one direction, as material moves through the gut. Why is this? My theory is that humor is connected with childcare, and that those humans who found nothing whatever funny about the GI tract probably did not pass along their genes, due to the fact that their children did not survive.

Srsly.

Posted by: Moulton

This is not about bovine flatulence.

Whether one is playing Parcheesi or Chess, part of the strategy is to block the opponent. Chess is often characterized as a war game, and political battles are often characterized as chess games. What's important about Wikipedia is that the gaming doesn't obey uniform rules. Nor are the so-called rules of the Wikipedia Game applied consistently and systematically by a conscientious and neutral referee who is not also a player in the game.

So Wikipedia is not only a game, it's a profoundly corrupt game in which a primary by-product is systemic injustice.

Injustice gives rise to anger and a rich array of other emotional responses ranging from disillusionment and dismay to disappointment and disgust on the mild end of the response specture. On the not-so-mild end, the responses range toward zany and bizarre dramas that turn WikiCulture into a lunatic opera.

Posted by: Grep

Makes sense -- it's a sort of Codependence thing then. Not so hilarious as the evil twin theory but depressingly plausible.

Posted by: victim of censorship

The conversation between the Wikipeidiot admin and the guys ISP would go like this.

Wikipeidiot: I'm a administrator for the Wikimedia project and (Name and IP address guy)

ISP: What has this guy had done which the ISP should act on?

Wikipeidiot: He's been creating accounts on Wikipedia to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syndemic&diff=prev&oldid=303065735 from science and health care articles, and has an alternative view of global warming.

ISP: <silence> then laughter, then <CLICK> the loud sound of ISP hanging up .

See another example on how Wikipidiot "zoe" try to apply the some MORONIC wiki rulez to real world people and brick and mortor organizations...See
the Zoe ves the Northern Illinois University discussions and crap in your pants with laughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=103767399#Response_from_Jimbo
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6385&hl=Northern%20Illinois%20University&st=0

PS... Raul is a brain damaged, fat greasy slob, with a degenerated Napoleon complex, delusions of grandeur, rolled up in a obsessive paranoia which causes basic disconnect with reality and fundamental need to lie and distort the truth and to hurt people in the same way a serial killer wants to kill and dominate his victims.

Posted by: Abd

He is not greasy. Please do not make unwarranted assumptions.

Posted by: Abd

Darn it! Long again, and I have to go deal with RL, and cannot afford the time to edit this down. Someone who reads it can quote what's important!

This is followed by an edited version by InkBlot, which seemed pretty good to me and is maybe half the length.

I agree, absolutely.

Scibaby started as an apparently sincere critic of the majority position. The way he was treated turned him, possibly, into a troll, it does not appear he started that way. What he would do if treated civilly and reasonably is unclear. It would cost little to find out, compared to the ongoing disruption that locking the doors, sealing the windows, and checking every bit of floor space for tunnels is causing. Damn! what's that noise on the roof?

Sure, he should follow and accept community consensus. But had guidelines been followed in the first place, by our administrators, he would not have been led into his current position. He's responsible, for sure, but so are the rest of us. Until we truly start following IAR, but instead respond reactively to past offenses by others, ignoring our own, we will continue to create and maintain Scibabies.

Where did Grawp come from? Is it possible that Grawp had some legitimate beef in the first place? It's just a question! Have we ever asked? Wikipedia will see some level of short-term vandalism no matter what we do, and an even rarer occurrence of long-term vandalism. If we want to keep that to a minimum, and, as well, only block and ban as truly necessary, we need to change our approach. Yes, all the way up to ArbComm, which has seemed to conclude, sometimes, that disputes are resolved by banning one side. It's one thing to insist on dispute resolution process, with, say, injunctions limiting behavior until a dispute is resolved, but it is quite another to bury one side; usually, when there is a dispute reaching ArbComm, there is misbehavior on both sides, and the atmosphere has become such that DR seems impossible. But it's not impossible, ever. It merely takes work, and we need some immediate decision for what to do, pending, and that is how we should see administrative intervention, which includes ArbComm intervention.

The "work" can be done by as few as one or two editors. Massive discussions are, in fact, to be avoided, that is where Wikipedia process breaks down.

I'll give a very personal example. There are two basic kinds of proposals before ArbComm now as to my editing future: mentorship and a topic ban (I doubt a site ban would be approved, though it is not inconceivable and it has certainly been proposed). Mentorship can be flexible, and, in fact, the cabal is seriously worried that, unless a hostile mentor is forced on me, the problem will continue. Their problem will, indeed. That is, mentorship, with an appropriate agreement, will separate the dross from the gold. There are complaints against me that are arguably legitimate, they have a plausible basis. I'm unskillful in certain ways. Mentorship, as well as certain other possible sanctions (I don't consider mentorship a sanction, particularly), would address the legitimate complaints, but it would also make me more effective, and, in particular, I have been effective in undoing some of the damage done by the cabal, and that process had only begun. The fully legitimate part would continue, they know it, and that is why they oppose mentorship, unless it is coupled with a broad ban.

The other proposal is a page ban on Cold fusion, or a topic ban on the topic. Now, ScienceApologist is under a topic ban, as is Pcarbonn. Pcarbonn was a "civil POV-pusher,'' allegedly. He was "convicted" based on an article he wrote in New Energy Times that allegedly showed an intention to use Wikipedia as a battleground. However, for me, the key would be how he used Wikipedia. If he insisted that Wikipedia follow its own guidelines -- and it seems to me that he did -- his beliefs about "justice" and "truth" and all that would be irrelevant; his agenda would only explain the energy he brought to the task. This is true with POV-pushers of all kinds, they are exercised by their POV, and, if they understand and support the basic policies of Wikipedia, they will work to make sure that articles are balanced. This was Jimbo's theory, and he was correct. POV-pushers detect opposing POV far better than we can detect our own biases from our own POV. Wikipedia needs POV-pushers, and especially it needs minority POV-pushers, or true neutrality and stability will remain elusive.

At this point, I'm the most informed of recent editors of the article as to the literature in the field of Cold fusion, and with the science background to understand it. Coppertwig is a scientist, and simply one who recognized my understanding. ScienceApologist is a particle physicist, and expert as to nuclear physics. Cold fusion is a crossover field, and one where physics and chemistry are in collision. Pcarbonn is apparently now employed as a researcher in the cold fusion field. (He may not have been at the time of the RfAr that topic banned him, I only know that he is now working that way.). JedRothwell, who some claim is banned, is recognized in reliable source as a expert in the field; he is a writer and editor of papers for peer review, and he knows the Japanese literature and the Japanese researchers well, he reads Japanese, and the most advanced work in the field is being done in Japan. We have banned the top experts in the field, of all those available to us, willing to contribute to the article. The only exception is one scientist, Kirk Shanahan, whom I would call somewhat knowledgeable. He's published in a narrow area of the research, calorimetry, and I restored his papers to the bibliography and have attempted to discuss the topic with him, on his Talk page. He's highly biased and has no understanding of or agreement with our basic guidelines, nor does he appear to understand the current research outside of his particular expertise. He has been a long-term and dedicated opponent of cold fusion since the early 1990s, he is heavily committed to skepticism. And he's important to the balance of our article.

JedRothwell is abrasive and may not be suited to regularly edit, but his comments on the Talk page were informative and sourced. He stopped editing the article a long time ago (2006), and is properly considered COI, as, possibly, Pcarbonn would be currently. Because I have invested a great deal in researching the topic, I've argued, I might also possibly be considered COI, I now have a strong POV. But banning me from Talk:Cold fusion and banning Pcarbonn from Talk and banning JedRothwell from talk is a pattern. SA was not banned from Talk. (For reasons I don't understand, he has not participated in Talk, his expertise would have been highly useful, for the other editors, particularly Enric Naval, don't know a correlation from a coincidence. Literally.) Basically, we are banning one side of a topic, and those left, who are willing to consider the possibility that Cold fusion is not merely a mistake of the 20th century, an example of pathological science and nothing more, if they become active, will be considered meat puppets for the banned editors. I've been accused of that, already. (Hey, I actually correspond with them! I ask experts about sources and they make suggestions! Communicating with the enemy! Who, exactly, is treating Wikipedia as a battlefield?)

A total topic ban is destructive, and my case shows it. A ban from editing articles would be fine with me, and coupled with a mentorship that would limit whatever is legitimately offensive about my work, could even make me more effective. And that is what they fear. My goal is consensus, maximized consensus, and that takes work, and they are afraid they might have to actually consider the basis for what they believe, and humans have, for many centuries, going back to Socrates' Athens, feared and hated those who asked questions about underlying ideas and motivations. I can do my work one consenting conversation at a time, and even a ban from the article talk pages would allow it to continue, as long as I could discuss on consenting user talk pages.

The secret: Sorry, One, ArbComm does not have the authority or power, the remit, to stop my real work. I will respect its jurisdiction, for sure. I would not sock. That's intrinsic to my position, for ArbComm is the best of what Wikipedia has. Sometimes the best is not enough, and Wikipedia raises larger issues. Some may consider this a challenge. It's not. It's just a fact. I narrowed my work to become a Wikipedia editor, and I am not limited to that channel. I've brought outside experience and techniques to bear on Wikipedia process, and it has largely been effective, and it was that very effectiveness that brought up such a response. JzG, the blacklistings, Global warming, each a small demonstration, and there have been others not even noticed. I don't blame them for being worried. But their fears are misplaced. I'm not like them, I'm not seeking some narrow victory, the other side vanquished and eliminated. I'm seeking just what I say I'm seeking, consensus. Which includes them. Necessarily, and unless they exclude themselves.

Abd doesn't admit it when he's wrong? Not true. Or am I wrong about that as well?

"Wrong" is a very complex judgment that denies the basis for a position. The truth is generally that someone is both right and wrong. "Wrong" is typically an incompletely expressed view with premature conclusions. If we really understood AGF we'd understand this and not try to insist that others admit error, rather we would seek agreement that transcends past incomplete positions.

Posted by: InkBlot

OK, edited (butchered) for length. Probably misses the point now, but I tried..
---
I agree, absolutely.

Scibaby started as an apparently sincere critic of the majority position. The way he was treated likely turned him into a troll. Sure, he should follow and accept community consensus. But had our administrators done the same, he would probably not have been led into his current position. He's responsible, for sure, but so are the rest of us.

Wikipedia will see some level of short-term vandalism no matter what we do, and an even rarer occurrence of long-term vandalism. If we want to keep that to a minimum, we need to change our approach - all the way up to ArbComm, which has seemed to conclude that disputes can be resolved by banning one side.

I'll give a very personal example. There are two basic kinds of proposals before ArbComm now as to my editing future: mentorship and a topic ban. Mentorship can be flexible, and with an appropriate agreement, will separate the dross from the gold. There are complaints against me that are arguably legitimate, they have a plausible basis. I'm unskillful in certain ways. Mentorship would address the legitimate complaints, but it would also make me a more effective contributor.

The other proposal is a page ban on Cold fusion, or a topic ban on the topic. Now, at this point, I'm the most informed of recent editors to the literature on Cold fusion, with the science background to understand it. Coppertwig is a scientist, and recognized that.

• ScienceApologist is a particle physicist, and expert in nuclear physics. Cold fusion is a crossover field, and one where physics and chemistry are in collision.
• Pcarbonn is apparently now employed as a researcher in the cold fusion field. (He may not have been at the time of the RfAr, I only know that he is now working that way.).
• JedRothwell is recognized in reliable sources as a expert in the field; he is a writer and editor of papers for peer review, and he knows the Japanese literature and the Japanese researchers well.

We have banned the top experts in the field, of all those available to us, willing to contribute to the article. POV-pushers detect opposing POV far better than we can detect our own biases from our own POV. Wikipedia needs POV-pushers, and especially it needs minority POV-pushers, or true neutrality and stability will remain elusive. This was Jimbo's theory, and he was correct.

Instead, we are banning one side of a topic, and those left who are willing to consider the possibility that Cold fusion is not merely a mistake of the 20th century will be considered meat puppets for the banned editors. I've been accused of that, already. (Hey, I actually correspond with them! I ask experts about sources and they make suggestions! Communicating with the enemy! Who, exactly, is treating Wikipedia as a battlefield?)

A total topic ban is destructive, and my case shows it. A ban from editing articles would be fine with me, and coupled with a mentorship that would limit whatever is legitimately offensive about my work, could even make me more effective. And that is what they fear. My goal is consensus, maximized consensus, and that takes work, and they are afraid they might have to actually consider the basis for what they believe.

I'm not seeking some narrow victory, the other side vanquished and eliminated. I'm seeking just what I say I'm seeking, consensus. Which includes them.

Posted by: Abd

Seemed pretty good to me, if you missed anything truly important, I didn't notice, but I did not compare it with the original. Curious, I am, how much time did it take?

It is easier, generally, to edit someone else's work than it is to edit one's own. The best work is done by an interchange, back and forth, between a writer and editor. Successful publishers assign editors to writers who will function sympathetically. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit," and it can be murder for writers, who do all kinds of offensive things like, uh, write what they know about, leave out sources, aim for maximum interest and intelligibility rather than maximum accuracy, and generally be creative, and they often include miscellaneous details of interest to them. It's an editor's job to supply what is missing (such as sources, either by finding them or asking for them), pruning out material that diverges too far from the publisher's purpose, enhancing expression where text is unclear, and, yes, fixing spelling and grammatical errors. Different jobs, often different skills.

Posted by: InkBlot

Aside from interruptions, about 10-15 minutes probably. Wikipedia can be murder on editors, too, for most of the "wars" on wp errupt between the people who know the content, and people who know what the encyclopedia should be like.

I've never been blocked on wikipedia yet, but I've been warned twice. Once for being drawn into a conflict on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation page over the whole "founder/co-founder" argument. I don't care about it one way or the other, but the co-founder side had gone through and littered waaay too many sources on a single word to prove their point. I read each and every one, and found nothing to support their argument. So I try to edit it out to something neutral (and avoid any version of "founder"). I got sucked into an edit war with a pair of tag-teaming reverters, and warned pretty quick.

The second occasion occurred around the time of the big ArbCom RFC. Someone tried to used the RFC as a basis to change ArbCom policy, and failed to gain any consensus. So instead, he went and cemented it into a Arbitration subpage about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Procedure_for_changing_this_policy, I guess to use as leverage against ArbCom later if they didn't change their tune. Me, I figure a page to describe procedures for changing a specific policy should, in fact, only really describe how to change that policy...not how to almost change the policy.

But people get really attached to their causes.

Posted by: Abd

Sure. As to the time, if we value our time equally, it was much better for you to edit it than for me to do it. It probably would have taken me 30 minutes to cut it that much. Was it painful?

Posted by: InkBlot

Not painful. A bit confusing in a few spots, where I think you may have left out a word. I'd come across a sentence with a "but" in the middle, yet no contradiction between the two halves. Mostly it's just digging down to the point in the middle of things.

Posted by: Cla68

Global Warming regular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephan_Schulz just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Stephan+Schulz an editor as a Scibaby sock under "Duck" for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=312144296&oldid=312033288 concerning the threat of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlobal_warming&diff=312144649&oldid=312144122 to greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere in the Global Warming article.

I checked the source, and it appears to be legitimate. Thus, the edit itself appeared to violate no policies that I can see. I understand that Scibaby had a fixation on bovine emissions, but this account was apparently blocked, not because of a checkuser finding, but because the account made an edit, otherwise within policy, that was similar to the edits of a banned editor.

Posted by: Moulton

Methane is well-known to be a greenhouse gas, and bovine flatulence is well-known to be a major source of methane in the atmosphere.

Posted by: No one of consequence

In this case, Schulz is correct.

Posted by: One

Yeah, that's his characteristic edit. Scibaby seems pretty easy to spot once he hits GW.

Many of the rangeblocks have been off for a while, but Scibaby hasn't made much progress in editing the articles.

Posted by: everyking

You can't fool me--you're a Scibaby sockpuppet, aren't you? Don't even try to deny it, Scibaby. I'm going to alert the FA Director right now.

Posted by: One

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Posted by: everyking

It takes a nation of millions of Scibaby sockpuppets to hold Raul back.

Posted by: Cla68

WMC later responded and said that the edit was wrong. If so, then the block is ok because then it does violate a policy or two.