Talk:John Lott/Archive 3

message: When this page gets unprotected, I'd prefer to expand that quote to prevent misunderstandings (my changes got lost in the 
revert war). 
Basically, one gets the impression from the current version of the article that people don't like Lott's findings because he performs really, really complex computations. However, this is not at all the point of the Goertzel piece being quoted; Goertzel is pointing out that econometric regressions of the sort Lott performs have to be robust, that you should not be able to make a few very small changes along the way that radically change the final conclusion. Lott, however, makes computation that cannot be performed on ordinary computers, resulting in the inability of other researchers to check whether his findings are robust. Nevertheless, DESPITE these obstacles, other researchers did eventually find that Lotts work is not robust, and hence his conclusion are not valid. A fuller quote would communicate this criticism better. --Pierremenard 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Robust results are certainly to be desired ceteris paribus.  But results do not have to be robust to be correct or the best results obtainable or the only results acceptable.  If the “few very small changes” in question are all deviations from truth, then the original results stand. (I am not here claiming that Lott's results are correct or the best results obtainable or the only results acceptable; I am pointing out that Goertzel and you are painting with far too broad a brush.  It is perhaps worth noting that Goertzel, in his own work, makes the sorts of mistakes with statistics that a first-term course is supposed to teach one not to make, such as computing regional means as unweighted averages of national means.  Goertzel is not even approximately a competent authority on correct statistical technique.) —12.72.72.227 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical One-Upmanship Quote 

message: Im afraid that after lookng over this article I am going to have to add an NPOV tag anmd am disputing the neutrality of this article  This artcile is very loppsided and unblanaced in favor of criticism gainst the subject more than I have ever seen. 
I think the only real alternative is to cut out alot of the info that is in the Criticism section in order to even things out, but do not know where to begin as I am not an expert on this topic.  I'm afraid that if I did it now without mor input from the community that I would jsut get reverted and I would be like a bull in a china shop.
As the article stands now, it's just a hit piece.  I think we need to take out approximately half of the criticism section or, in some other way, narrow the criticism down to clearer more discrete points instead of just going on and on about how everybody seems to hate this guy.
Sorry.  I hate these tags, but this is not a good article in the least.Gator (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the folks who are "unbalanced in favor of criticism" are the ones who have the most knowledge about the subject while the ones who want to "even things out" seem to not be able to provide facts to support their edits or admit not knowing much about the subject is relevant, seems to me. Gzuckier 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if the article dealt more with Lott and his research rather than with conspiracy theories/criticism/speculation about popsuckets...  I would attempt a rewrite of the first few sections but I admit I'm a little afraid after taking a peak at this article's historyWesbo 02:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please suggest a concrete isolated change or concrete isolated problem in the article that you believe makes it POV. "It says attributed bad things about the subject, lots of them" is not a pov problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, one change at a time, preferably with a reason for it spelled out, if it doesn't fit in the summary box, then on the talk page; big changes with support of the quality of "well it's clear Lott believes he did the survey, so why is it such a fuss?" would just be more of the same old poopoo. Baby steps. Gzuckier 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the intelocutors that always bothered me in the lead in to the Lott-rosh-dueling-usenet quotes. It always seemed a bit over the top to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I see there has been some dispute over whether a POV tag is required. I would like to ask you, if someone adds one, to keep it there. When that tag is there, it adds the page to a category of pages to be checked for their neutrality, in effect, acting as a form of dispute resolution (an RfC). If someone would like the article to be checked and adds the tag, I think common courtesy requires everyone else to not remove it. Because of WP:AGF, we are required to assume that whoever adds one adds it in good faith and only if there is evidence to the contrary can it be removed. Izehar 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume Good Faith does not mean Ignore Bad Acts. NPOV dispute has 1510 articles in it. 1510. If there was something that could be RFCed in the article, the neverending stream of sockpuppet accounts with no edits but this article would have RFCed something. That Gator1, defender of all conservative on wikipedia User:BigDaddy777 thinks there's an NPOV dispute (but can't be bothered to explain what it is, except that THERE'S LOTS OF BAD STUFF ABOUT HIM HERE), can't be bothered to use the talk page of an article with a big fat contravercial tag up top that just came off protection, and took a hacksaw to all the unflattering stuff as soon as he showed up got met with his precious tag (still no discussion in talk about any real NPOV dispute, by the way) reverted is expected. That he got a friend of his to try to tell a core of people who have been defending this article from POV warriors for the better part of a year (and we would have improved it, if we didn't have to constantly get rid of garbage edits) that THEY need to leave his tag up (which has been left up as soon as he got reasonable and stopped hacksawing "stuff he didn't like = POV") is just ignorable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The article does not say that John Lott did not conduct a survey. Since you were solicited to come forward , I don't think this meets the incredibly low bar Gator1 set for himself. A number of other people would also meet the incredibly low bar -> any of the various reverters to the Serenety "version," anyone with no substantial edit history outside of this article, anyone who is solicited to come here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't know you were going to go out and solicit people to support you after you pretend that the 48 hour thing was some kind of test. If you'd like, I can go get a whole heaping load of people who think the article is just fine thanks to show up and start removing it, but that would be acting in bad faith - and I consider that your territory, not mine. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I waited 48 hours without a single comment or edit from you. The article remained in your last edited state. In the event that another 48 hours pass without edit from any reputable editor on the other "side" of this assine contravercy, I will remove the NPOV tag, and will revert any attempts to reinsert it unless such is accompanied by an edit or discussion on talk page that does not read "I want my tag back." (which, by the way, is how I characterize your paragraph above.) There is currently no dispute on the talk page (except for that from non-reputable "editor" Serenity, who does not have standing). As such, the tag is innacurate unless you are in the process of finding something to discuss on the talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't give two shits what you are "challenging." The tag reads as follows "Please see discussion on the talk page." If there is no discussion on the talk page, and there is no editing going on to the article, you should feel free to put the  tag on it, which you can make to read "Some user dosen't like this article, but isn't doing anything to improve it or solve his concerns." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free not to comment. You have not brought a single concern you have had to this talk page. Not one. Everyone here is sitting on pins and needles waiting to find out what this elusive POV concern you have (so far, you've just been cutting down paragraphs in a way that no one appears to have a problem with). Size concerns are not POV concerns, especially not size concerns that NO ONE IS DISPUTING (no dispute = no dispute). As you might know, what you should be looking for is Wikipedia backing up one side in a dispute. IE - "John Lott is a fraud" vs. "Hipocrite says John Lott is a fraud." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I took a look at the link in question and the web page does not say hal;f the tigns about that guy as our rtcile did. All of this talk about him being an activist or that he later believed that the survey was for Lott is simply not in that cite.  This stuff may be true (still has NPOV problems as characerizing someone as an activist can be POV unless they clasim it themself or its exceedingly obvious) but the cite doesnt support any of that, so it should not be there until thise assertions can be. The artcile just says he was a attorney who claimed that he was  apart of the survey.   That's it.  Al tis other stuff is entirely unspported and needs to be if it should be a part of the article Can anyone find something on that?  Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person who claims to partcipated in survey 

message: Just kidding, I'm ok with all the edits to my last version as of now. Excelsior! Gzuckier 04:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I protest! 

message: Oops, I thought that were automatically deleted.  My mistake!  Thanks!Gator (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: You removed the following content that was in the article before you came here, because you said the article was too long on the rosh stuff:
"After the discovery, Lott stated to the Washington Post:
"I probably shouldn't have done it – I know I shouldn't have done it – but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously." "
Today, you are putting cite needed on "Lott admitted that he had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet."
Either you are acting in bad faith, or you lack the memory required to effectively edit this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad memory or bad faith? 

message: Thanks for finding those cites, Hip.  That's what we needed.Gator (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks Hipocrite

message: OK, I did read Tim's cite for otehr sockpuppets, but it's just a cite to his own blog with the allegations of other sockpuppetry.  I didn't think that was nearly good enough and its not palced after the sockpuppet allegation so it's confusing. Now I'm not saying he didn't do it, I personally think he did, but my probelm is with the sourcing.  Do other people feel that a cite to his own blog is good enough or should there be something more concrete?  Thoughts?  I will move/copy the cite to the correct placve so it looks cited.Gator (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't care. Attribute it to Tim Lambert, if you want. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sockpuppets 

message: I started to go through some cityea dnt he first one I looked at had  a problem.
The article attributes the following quote:
:"The papers that get downloaded the most get noticed the most by other academics. It is very important that people download this paper as frequently as possible." (Emphasis in the original) to:  .  
However, footnote 26, doesn't include this quote.  Anyone know where that may be?  Did I just miss it?  Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you fucked up the footnotes - AGAIN - the numbering is off. Check the name of the footnote, not the numbering. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, CHILL.  I only touched them ONCE and you corrected and told me never to do it again "period"  Remember that?  Calm down and watch the language.  Just find the right cite and put it there.  It's not a big friggin deal.  There is no need for a nasty comment from you every time you have to edit.  Just stop it.  See WP:CIVIL and read it this time.Gator (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite 

message: Why don't we use the traditonal citation method of just putting the website in single brackets after the cited sentence.  Call me stupid, but this footnoting system seems overly complicated.  Is there a real advantage to this system verus the traditonal method? Let's just do it the easy way.  Thoughts?Gator (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. What is currently in place is one generation behind best practice. You want to take it back to two generations back. If you'd like to learn how to do citations right, please review  Template:Ref/examples, Wikipedia:Footnotes. We can't put the list of dozens of articles that you insisted I include in the references section as inclines. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that one os more advanced or newer thant he other, but how exactly is it better?  I've reviewed that before and I don't really see how one is generations ahead of the other. Just different. Why can't we put them as inclines?  It takes up the same space and people can just click the number and go to the web page instead of having clicking the number and then being brought to the bottom and then having to go back up to remind themself what the footnote number was and then going down again and then clicking on the footnote. 
If one is really better than the other that's fine, but I'm just not seeing how it is.Gator (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How exactly are you going to do note 9, which you insisted I include, as an inline? Why won't you just spend the time to learn how to do footnotes? Then, instead of POV warring across the encyclopedia, you could actually contribute. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: You've had your way with the article for two weeks with basically no disagreement from the standard editors of this page. It's about time for the tag to go. As such, I have modified it to pov_check, and must insist that people that see remaining POV problems with the article to POST THEM BELOW, ON THE TALK PAGE. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV check 

message: If the anonymous vandal reintroduces his biased version and is not reverted by Gator1 at some point within the next 24 hours, I will revert to my prefered version of the article. If it is to be anonymous sockpuppets flailing at people trying to fix the article, I might as well make my reverts count. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous vandal 

message: I've requested that this page be semi-protected to stop anon sock vandals from doing this garbage and Ihave reported the sokcs as vandals in multiple locations.Gator (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I expect that this will not be seen as vandalism as opposed to agressive and poor editing by the sockpuppeteer in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had same thought, but I'm trying anyway.  At least a semi-protect, by itself, would help.  We'll see what happens.Gator (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh much better.  Thanks!Gator (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect 

message: This page needs to be permanently semi-protected. --Pierremenard 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection is not designed to keep bad editors who refuse to log in from editing the page, and was innapropriate in this case. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sei-protection keeps anon editors from editing, which is where almost al of the vandalism sock edits were coming from....if you're opposed to semi-protection thats fine, but why do you want to prohibit all editing?  There are no discussions going on here that require that and (at least with semi-proection) you can stop most the the anon vandals?  What's your rationale?Gator (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the anonomyous editors were doing nothing to help the encyclopedia, WP:VAND does not evaluate the quality of the edits, rather the motive behind them. The anonymous editors were not vandalizing the article, they were just editing poorly. As such, semi-protection is not justified. I did not request full protection. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I thought you would want semi-protection to keep them out, but it looks liekw e agree that full protecton is unjustfied.  I'd like to know who requested it or why Woohoo felt it was necessary.  Let's get rid of it.Gator (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that full protection is unwarranted at the moment. --Pierremenard 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please come to the request page and say that.  I'm done arguing with him about every little thing.Gator (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An opinion 

message: I suggest that the entire piece be subjected to a meat-cleaver, reducing it down just a bibliography and academic background. There are hundreds (thousands?) of political commentators, and Wiki isn't the place for pro-and-con wrangling over their subject(s) of interest; ....that's what blogs and Amazon.com book reviews are for. See the Robert Spencer entry for an example of truncation (see the history link for the formerly bloated and incessantly-argued version). --Mike18xx 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dishonesty in this case is the subject of articles in the Washington Post, and the academic dispute is the subject of numerous journal articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...exactly. Which is why chop/hack/thwock/mince/grind/crunch down to bib+aca, otherwise you'll never, ever get away from the endless cycle of people all clamoring to insert their most favoritist puff or slam piece on all earth.--Mike18xx 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This would be a betrayal of our duty to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not shrink from controversy; see the George W. Bush article for details. Yes, this article will always be edited often, but I don't see why thats a bad thing. --Pierremenard 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The controversy regarding Lott's studies, and concomitant accusations of dishonesty, are very significant factors regarding Lott. An article that omitted these would be incomplete. The challenge is ensuring that this is done in a NPOV manner, and that weight is given appropriately based on the prominence of various criticisms and defenses. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just the facts, Ma'am 

message: In the introduction it says that he is "currently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute." While later the article states that he left AEI in 2006. He doesn't appear on AEI's list of scholars and fellows, so it would appear that the later information is correct. Could we change the article to reflect this also in the introduction? --Kristjan Wager 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AEI 

message: There's ten times as much criticism about Lott's conclusions than about the evidence and reasoning by which he reached his conclusions. I didn't even see his simple claim that when states like Florida started allowing concealed weapons again, violent crime immediately began dropping and stayed way down.
That's not something that has to be teased out of the data with complex calculations no one can check. It's a single number. (It's something like 40,000 crimes a year dropping to 30,000 crimes a year; we're talking grade-school math here.)
I'm not going to argue FOR his conclusions here on the talk page. Rather, I'm challenging my fellow contributors to give the man's ideas a fair shake by summarizing his views and quoting a few references to the evidence he offers in support of his views. 
Just saying "Lott favors guns" and then spending the rest of the article arguing against him, is not up to encyclopedia standards of quality. --Uncle Ed 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, John Lott#Debate over adequacy of data for definitive answer to the question of the relationship between guns and crime shouldn't be a subheading of criticism. I'm not even sure it should be in here, but moved to some general article on studies of relationship between guns and crime, with a reference here, but at least here is better than deleted completely from Wpedia. Gzuckier 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-Lott bias

message: Removed:
*These are numbers you don't get by single-issue research. His work on personal protection (largely the topic which draws the flammage of resident critics such as Tim Lambert) is apparently only a small fraction of the work he has done on topics from minimum wage and other price controls to crime and over-criminalization of companies and individual actions, to a variety of campaign issues, and to the environment.
inserted by Mr. Purtilo, slightly optimistically summarized as "Objective data added to the fact package" Gzuckier 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  objective data? 

message: I've removed the  tag from the article as the editor who placed it there, User:68.213.79.191, has not left a note on the talk page to describe what his problem is with the article.  I've also left a note on that user's talk page.  If anyone thinks it should be re-inserted, please do so, but please also describe your reasoning on the talk page as well.  Thanks!  --- Deville (Talk) 12:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words tag 

message: With regard to media bias, I came across the following information, which might be something to add to the main page or not  tell me what you think.
:A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights. For broadcasts from major networks from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories:
:• The ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was 16:1.
:•Anti-gun spokespeople (Sarah Brady, etc) were given three times the number of sound bites than pro-gun spokespeople (NRA, etc).
Does the above not prove John Lott's point on media bias?  Or is the Media Research Center considered biased in favor of gun ownership?  Al Lowe 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it would be worth an entry, but more probably in an article on gun politics, cause it's not Lott himself.Gzuckier 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Media Research Center's own mission statement says that they are out to prove liberal bias in the media.  Their counts might be correct, but it would be better to find something from a neutral source.  --TimLambert 03:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as I would love to find a neutral source, I have serious doubts that one even exists.  Al Lowe 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Bias 

message: Last 94 IP vandals, Talk:John Lott page, NPOV section only:
22 were noted as open proxies at the top of their talk pages; 1 was never actually blocked:
* 195.23.213.68 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 196.40.43.218 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 201.21.75.211 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 201.252.88.123 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 206.54.70.243 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 212.150.75.35 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 24.42.127.76 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 65.99.198.36 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 66.169.184.111 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 67.162.59.136 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 67.191.68.191 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 67.38.251.190 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log]) - not blocked
* 68.51.147.199 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 68.8.45.66 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 68.97.20.21 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 69.134.133.202 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 69.242.84.64 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 69.31.91.234 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 69.70.248.117 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 71.134.193.96 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 81.184.104.122 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 86.106.3.27 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
4 additional IP addresses were blocked as open proxies (just not noted at the top of the talk page or on the user page):
* 124.50.69.21 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 203.158.215.2 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 210.107.194.199 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 66.134.131.10 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
12 received blocks, but not indefinite, for a variety of reasons:
* 125.244.115.142 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 193.206.79.31 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 195.78.225.188 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 207.195.79.127 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.47.162.225 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 212.13.37.50 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 213.249.155.239 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 58.138.30.84 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 61.106.178.100 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 72.2.18.19 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 72.232.92.190 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 84.235.100.2 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
39 have received warnings but never been blocked:
* 131.107.27.21 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 133.98.134.110 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 161.53.6.25 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 163.26.167.253 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 192.169.41.44 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 200.204.40.37 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 203.251.147.221 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 208.53.8.198 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 208.53.8.220 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 210.126.24.39 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 210.70.129.250 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.107.197.231 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.187.150.2 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.195.40.226 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.236.3.91 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 213.234.246.213 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 218.154.220.172 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 218.45.223.85 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 219.240.36.173 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 219.9.52.76 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 220.119.252.104 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 220.122.138.72 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 220.62.60.34 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 221.112.41.45 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 222.96.73.90 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 24.226.46.208 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 24.232.255.54 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 59.1.50.148 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 59.5.190.173 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 66.160.176.201 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 67.167.102.22 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 67.168.160.210 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 68.62.54.175 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 68.77.136.227 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 69.215.77.18 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 70.71.98.2 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 72.16.244.200 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 85.18.190.7 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 86.120.141.242 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
17 have never received warnings or blocks:
* 122.99.223.68 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 125.189.40.48 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 156.17.42.171 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 203.153.224.25 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 208.53.8.215 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 210.56.7.158 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.118.17.149 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 211.54.143.17 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 216.75.15.26 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 218.40.88.247 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 222.220.16.205 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 222.236.34.94 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 62.153.91.83 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 83.17.118.174 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 83.206.30.2 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 84.253.151.77 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
* 89.102.47.223 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log])
--A. B. (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thank you for compiling that. If I were an adminstrator, I would go deal with them all right now. My suggestion is that you copy the valuable work you have just done and send it to WikiProject on open proxies - they use a format, but I bet they'll give you a pass based on the size of the report. Again, thanks for the effort - it is much appreciated! Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. I have reported them all at WikiProject on open proxies. It took about 2½ hours to research it all, but I was afraid to accidentally throw an innocent IP into the mix. (Who says only article writers do research?) --A. B. (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not going to be semi-protected, I guess you could think of it as something like a honeytoken for open proxies. --A. B. (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I s-protected it for a month, back in July. Three days after removing the protection the vandal was back. -Will Beback · † · 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So in that case, why not just leave it semi-protected? --A. B. (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal prejudice is against leaving articles semi-protected for long periods, and is even more opposed to semi-protecting article talk pages. However I don't see any legitimate IP contributions to this page in over a year. I'll re-protect it for another long stretch and let's see what happens. Also, we could probably archive the whole page. If it is really a vandal rather than a spammer that might help. -Will Beback · † · 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 25 out of 94 open proxies hitting NPOV section were ever blocked indefinitely 

message: Likely open proxies that have attacked Talk:John Lott in sections other than the NPOV section:
* 198.174.3.116 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log]) noted as an open proxy but not blocked
* 210.71.187.53 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log]) blocked briefly
* 66.207.198.98 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log]) warned
* 69.109.213.45 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log]) warned
--A. B. (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 additional open proxy suspects