Yes I realised I'd accidentally reverted content removal on a user page, not an article, about 2 seconds after I did it. I did attempt to put it back and apologise in the edit comment, but had got beaten to it by maxim. Given I'd then realised he was tidying up cluttering his page with an appology didn't really seem appropriate either. Oops. --BrucePodger (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I cited that discussion, must;'ve been a brain fart on my part. A new discussion was on the UCFD page, nommed in mid-February. See here. Sory about that. Wizardman 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikzilla is apparently still angry about his earlyer blocks and continues to use Ip addresess and acounts for attack. please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.247.1.142 & [1] [2][3] for more information.Freepsbane (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Wikzilla seems to be quite persistent. Freepsbane (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are we. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you are persistant at you ugly bastard is fucking the TROLL Freepsbane The only thing you are persistant at you ugly bastard is fucking the TROLL Freepsbane

I blocked this user that you left an NPA3 warning for. Their attacks looked concerning enough to warrant a temporary block. If you have a problem with the block please let me know or feel free to undo it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GWH, per your suggestion and our conversation on the Mantanmoreland proposed decision page, I added some evidence of abusive COI sockpuppeting. I assume you saw it since you just commented in that section, but would you mind commenting on the evidence directly? Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would very much appreciate increased third party involvement in the article. Especially from admins. A couple of points:

• I am in no way trying to "whitewash" anything - you will see from my last edit that I have highlighted the criticism he has received from various Bosniak groups. However, I have also tried to balance this by giving Mr Trifunovic's side of the story. I cannot see how this in any way could be construed as WP:POV. Please see my last version of the article.
• If I have violated WP:BATTLE I am truly sorry. I believe that I have been civil and refrained from any personal attacks (including any on Mr Trifunovic).
• I also believe that I have tried to participate actively and constructively in the Talk page to improve the article and reach consensus. However, I have deleted/reverted what I believe to have been obvious WP:BLP violations (per Wikipedia WP:SD policy).
• Finally, I believe that the current, protected, version of the article is an obvious violation of WP:BLP. The "Srebrenica Genocide Denial Controversy" is not appropriate in its current form. A number of reasons for this. One, fhe subtitle "genocide denial" a weasel word, specifically used to tarnish Trifunovic. Two, the text states that Trifunovic is the "author" of the report when the report actually states that it was "prepared" by Darko Trifunovic, it is therefore not clear what role he played in chosing its content. Thirdly, the text misrepresents the report in saying that it states that "only about 100 Bosnian soldiers were killed" while in fact what the report is saying is that about "2,000" Bosnian Muslim men were killed, mainly in combat, and that about 100 Muslim Soldiers were summarily executed (se p 33 of the report). Fifth, claiming "genocide denial" is WP:OR since nowhere does the report bring up the issue of genocide or not. Please remember that according to the ICTY, genocide is not a matter of numbers killed. Finally, the current text does not provide any rebuttal of the accusation.

Please consider WP:BLP, especially the part stating "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" in light of my arguments above. Regards, Osli73 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure you saw my late response to your question. Perhaps you were only looking for POV pushing evidence that Mantanmoreland's socks were used abusively. I think the evidence outside POV pushing is all by itself sufficient to find abuse. Just follow the diffs and the link to SirFozzie's evidence page, where there are more diffs. I was particuarly annoyed to see the socks voting at the Judd Bagley AfD -- while I was putting some effort into arguing, Mantanmoreland/sammiharris was voting twice. Noroton (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizilla seems to try and continue to edit the Fourth generation fighter page. This time it is through a sleeper account Philbaaker‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) like PTgreen created shortly after Wikizilla’s ban and activated after the fourth generation talk page became semi protected. WZ sees to be quite a persistent fellow.Freepsbane (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly but not unexpectedly Wikizilla seems to have come back using a new account just after the block of Phil. the new account has virtually no contributions Getitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and jumped into wikizilla's favorite straw poll. Apparently some people just don’t know when to quit. Thanks for all of your help.Freepsbane (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest I just undid before I looked at what he reverted. It was my vote and I thought that anyone could vote. But since you mentioned it I noticed someone accused spentcosts and downtrip to be sockpupets. I must admit I did not know much about sockpupets until I did the research. I still fail to see how you decide who is and who is not. It really all looks arbitrary to me but what do I know. I will say though that I do agree some of the points raised and I see no reason to supress the arguments made as they are on point. Do you seek the truth or do you worry who the messenger is? At any rate, if it really bothers you and some other editors that much I will not revert anything, not re-instate my vote and move on. It’s really not worth the hassle. Good day. --Philbaaker (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the report on AN/I a few days ago of edit warring and BLP problems on Darko Trifunović, on which you commented, I've rewritten the article from scratch. Your views on the rewrite would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizilla seems to be obsessed with the thread in question. Two new accounts have poped up and taken the same actions WZ did Getitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Thomthumb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are the accounts in question, thanks for your time. Freepsbane (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your block here Do you have a diff that you could cite as evidence (if you are already typing something about this to an/i or somewhere else then please excuse me). daveh4h 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry! I should have figured you were typing it up on an/i. Sorry for jumping the gun, I was a bit shocked by it. daveh4h 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an entirely appropriate query - Given the overall situation with the Arbcom case, it is an extremely high visibility action, and I think it pretty much required a notice on ANI or elsewhere. Nothing wrong with asking about it at all. No worries! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, you may want to reply to my queries on this on ANI. I think you may have really jumped the gun, a bit. Lawrence § t/e 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indefensible block, GWH. As you have mentioned elsewhere, that this seperate email address did send a seperate email to you, and because it sounds like Judd Bagley, you're going to block a two year old account, that if I'm not mistaken, is OLDER then WordBomb itself? WB's account was created 7/6/2006, and Mackan's was created on or before 6/23/06? You have two options. Undo your block, or have it done for you. I think you owe Mackan a really sincere apology. SirFozzie (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your ANI posting you said you would unblock if he identified himself to the AC or WMF. Under what possible authority does any admin have to ask for that, let alone the AC or WMF? Lawrence § t/e 06:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely have individuals provide ID to unblock-en-L or arbcom or the Foundation for multiple purposes, including confirming who they are or aren't. Those are one set of conditions under which an unblock would be unambiguously proper. They're not a requirement for an unblock. Other conditions for unblock may well exist, including the ever-present potential of a mistake on my part. But I haven't changed my mind on that part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to that, I have taken a look at the CheckUser data. While WordBomb has likely used proxies or the like in the past, there is no indication based on IP evidence alone that there is a connection. Mackan79's IPs are geographically distinct from WordBomb's, and do not appear to be proxies of any kind, as far as I can tell right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC). From your ANI thread. Now are you willing to admit your mistake? SirFozzie (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what--so on some private mail list we force people to provide... what, scans of drivers licenses? As a condition of unblocking? Can you explain what exactly you mean here? Lawrence § t/e 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelieveable. You cannot admit you've made a mistake, can you? You've now had THREE checkusers tell you, 2 on the ANI thread that they are geographically seperate, and that there's no sign of proxy use, and you still say "Well, you SOUND like Bagley".. that's really beyond the pale, GWH. Really. You owe Mackan a full apology. SirFozzie (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have eroded all confidence I have in your abilities as an admin. Bstone (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last question, sorry: do you feel that policy application should be the same for any and all users? If not why? It seems your standards for determining if sockpuppetry occurred operates on different standards for different users. Your threshold for the MM/SH case appeared incredibly high, compared to the Mackan79 case. Would you be willing to discuss why that is? Lawrence § t/e 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, Wordbomb's already banned rather permanently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 however isn't. Why did you apply to Mackan79 a different duck standard than Mantanmoreland? Both are/were editors in good standing at the time. Why was Mantanmoreland given more leeway than another long-term user with just about the same amount of contributions? Lawrence § t/e 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the block immediately, George - I think you've stuffed up badly here..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an immediate unconditional apology is in order, George..... please consider apologising - I think that would be a great signal for everyone to start moving on.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PM as above. Bstone (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I inquire whether I'll be hearing further? Mackan79 (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation on-wiki has inconveniently concluded for now without you providing or allowing me to provide the email in toto for others to consider and comment on, and without anyone uninvolved in the Arbcom case to weigh in on the underlying facts.

I always entertain the possibility that I make mistakes. I prefer a situation to be resolved in a way that I can either tell that I was correct and that others agree with me, or tell that I was wrong and I'll apologize for a mistake. As you were unblocked by an involved admin, the supporting comments were all by involved admins, and you inexplicably want to keep the rest of the email private I don't see this situation as having resolved to either outcome. You're unblocked, but you also haven't actually answered the question.

I'm happy to discuss either in public or private to come to a conclusion either way. My ego survives making mistakes and apologizing for them. If you can convince me sufficiently unambiguously that I did so here you'll get a public apology. But I'm not willing to do so now, because I believe a preponderance of the evidence I have available to me still shows that you could well be Judd Bagley operating off a server remotely from his residence.

I clearly don't know that to be true for an unambiguous fact, but I also don't have sufficient evidence to disprove. It's up to you if you want to try and convince me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what you are looking for GWH? If you'd like to make some point about an email, please make it, but I don't write private emails to be publicly posted. If you'd like to say I used some phrase WordBomb used, then say that as well, if you think it is important. Otherwise you didn't even think you'd received the email when you raised this, and now suddenly the email is supposed to be the whole issue. I will concede that I am not impartial, but I question how you think this is an appropriate way to approach another editor. I also question why you blocked me as an involved editor, specifically the one whose comments I criticized, and are now saying other people involved in these discussions should not act. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were absolutely not blocked in any way for criticizing me. Quite a large number of people have done so over the years without appearing to be Bagley in the process. I have publically and privately defended the right of several of them to say critical things, including of me, and I believe in a vigorous open debate.

You were blocked precisely and soley because you used similar phrasing to Judd Bagley in the first cited diff and referred to emails, which he has sent me. Your email from December was sufficiently dissimilar to your on-wiki comment, and the on-wiki comment was sufficiently similar to Judd's comments, that it jumped out at me as a clear match. You still haven't convinced me that it's not a match.

I blocked you because I came to believe you're Judd. You still haven't convinced me otherwise, though as I said I always keep the possibility of error in mind. An administrator blocking someone to gain advantage in a dispute is abusing their power - an administrator blocking a sockpuppet, in the middle of a dispute, is acting properly. I could not possibly have gained an advantage in this dispute by blocking you, with dozens of other parties arguing for Mantanmoreland's banning. The nature of the dispute, with off-wiki and on-wiki participation by Byrne and Bagley, has made a large crowd of admins and all of Arbcom acutely aware of the risk of sockpuppetry. I balance the possibility that I saw a shadow and jumped at it on one side, with the possibility that you are Judd and getting away with it because people who already agreed with you didn't consider it seriously on the other.

Ways to resolve this are a large crowd of uninvolved admins showing up and telling me I was clearly wrong (difficult now, you're unblocked and the ANI thread closed/archived), you cooperatively convincing me I was wrong, or me finding some additional evidence and convincing others I was right all along.

I am neither going to focus my life on stalking you and digging up some marginal evidence to try and re-raise the case, nor close myself to civil discussions to change my mind on the mistake angle. I and others have been and will continue to review various activities for risk of sockpuppetry. If I happen to come across anything more implicating you I'll hand it to Arbcom for processing and leave it alone myself. If you help change my mind and I am convinced it was a mistake you'll get a public apology.

That's where things stand, as far as I'm concerned. You've been polite, if not entirely as cooperative as I would ask for, and I'll continue to hold an open mind and discuss in public or private as you prefer, if you prefer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, will you agree that any comment I've left today is no different than the other comments I've since shown you that I left criticizing your comments on Bagley? I adopt a somewhat formal tone when I'm addressing someone for the first time by email. On Wikipedia I generally refer to people by the first part of their name. In any case, it clearly wasn't a dissimilarity to my initial email that caught your interest, since you didn't even know you'd received the initial email. While I wouldn't say you've blocked me for disagreeing with you either, you blocked Krimpet suddenly and inappropriately the other day, and you did block me here based on a comment I made criticizing you. You then told another editor he was too involved to unblock. I'm not sure if it helps convince you to point these things out, but it's about all I can do. I have just emailed Alison personal information, which she can hopefully confirm is credible. Mackan79 (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George - did you know that Mackan's blog log now identifies him as incorrectly diagnosed cockpuppet? - now crack a smile, and say sorry. You've stuffed up here, and high falutin' talk of remote servers and 'i could be rights' doesn't become you. Here's the rub. Even if Mackan is wordbomb, you should apologise. Ah go on.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[..] a preponderance of the evidence I have available to me still shows that you could well be Judd Bagley operating off a server remotely from his residence." - to be honest, checkuser does not support that hypothesis at all. Seriously - Alison ^❤ 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your note at Viridae's talk page George - I think you should apologise immediately. Please do - it's the right thing to do. Privatemusings (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, this block was very badly judged, and your continued defensiveness is just making you look worse. A public apology - on AN/I and on Mackan's talk page - is urgently needed. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when in a bit of a hole, it's sometimes a good idea to stop digging. honest!

Jay is correct above, George, and please give some thought to the perspective that the control in resolving this matter is entirely yours - I think the eyes on this matter right now would welcome a calm, unconditional apology. We can chalk it up to experience, and move on, knowing that georgewilliam may be fallible, but he'll say sorry when he should..... Privatemusings (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for making mistakes. I have done so before and it's on the record. Rather inconveniently, the way this has been resolved has still failed to actually answer the concerns I had at the moment I blocked. I would rather they be resolved one way or the other, but to do that requires more information. Mackan79 is being civil and he may help provide that information and resolve this one way or the other, and if it's resolved to my satisfaction as a mistake on my part he'll get an apology. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you issue "cool-off" blocks, and objected (I see at least one on your talk page here). I never saw you respond to the objections. Between those blocks, this one, and your subsequent reaction, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're in the recall cat. . .I'm not there quite yet, but I'm starting to wonder. . .R. Baley (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ahead of you - I've already checked, and he isn't. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bang on too much (it's a bad habit that I'm well aware I suffer from) - but I thought I would just quietly say that I don't think you should apologise for thinking Mackan is wordbomb - as silly or accurate as that may be, but rather for the clumsy and disruptive way you went about it. Your thoughts are your own, and always will be, its your actions that are clearly wanting in this situation. You indef blocked without leaving a note, or raising concerns publicly anywhere. You've interacted with Mackan considerably, and in ways which have the appearance of a dispute. You've put yourself in the position of appearing to hold double standards, and by far the worse crime in my book is failing to immediately find it hilarious that Mackan is not a cockpuppet.

Your actions have made your ability to be a great administrator questionable. It would be truly wonderful if you could take some of this on board, and offer something along the lines of 'I understand, and I'm sorry for the disruption'.... you see that kind of introspection is almost always a massively valuable experience - which is my motivation for encouraging you towards it.... I think I've said enough now, so I'll stand back, and offer you best wishes, and a sincere request once more that you apologise fully out here in the open.... Privatemusings (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priavtemusings...cool it...go work on some articles and stop stirring up more drama.--MONGO 08:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO. the only person who should go work on some articles and stop stirring up more DRAHMA is GWH. This was absolutely horrible judgement. SirFozzie (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record here, Mackan79 has contacted me via email (as have you) and has followed up by a phone conversation. I have now sufficient evidence to state categorically that I know who Mackan79 is in real life and can state that he is absolutely not Judd Bagley. I am treating the information he has provided as private and confidential per WMF policy on privacy and shall make a statement to ArbCom myself as to this in the morning. it's past 2am here now so it's time for bed :) Can we please end this now and clear this man's name here? His block log is already indelibly marked and this accusation still hangs unjustly over him. Let's put this behind us and move on - Alison ^❤ 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan is in the clear which is good but I don't think that should be the end. This is one of the worst blocks I have ever seen, particularly given your comments in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case. Your behavior since the block has arguably been worse, holding off on an apology and continuing to snipe at the user you unrighteously blocked. Many people who look at this situation will lose confidence in your admin abilities (I was apparently not the only one who checked to see if you were in the admin recall category) and you should seriously consider explaining yourself. I for one have several questions.

1) In the Mantanmoreland case you argued for an incredibly rigorous WP:DUCK standard. You remained skeptical for quite some time despite a mass of evidence. In response to Mackan above you say, "You were blocked precisely and soley (sic, emphasis added) because you used similar phrasing to Judd Bagley in the first cited diff and referred to emails, which he has sent me." How can you possibly conclude Mackan is a sock on the basis of some off-wiki linguistic similarity (as you see it) when you did not conclude (at first at least) that Mantan was socking on the basis of far more evidence? Please note that "WordBomb in banned, that's the difference" is not the correct answer. We know that, the question is how you can apply one standard for DUCK, which is what we are talking about here, to one user (Mackan) and another standard for another (Mantan/Sami). They were both longstanding users. I think it's very important that you offer an explanation for this apparent inconsistency.

2) You said to Mackan, "I blocked you because I came to believe you're Judd. You still haven't convinced me otherwise..." Given that several editors (involved, true, but so were you George, which is part of why this block reeks to high heaven) promptly disputed your block (actually no one agreed with you) and then lifted it, why is Mackan still required to prove to you that he is not WordBomb? Is not the burden of proof on you in this case, or can admins really say "no, trust me, I have this one e-mail and it sounds the same as this other thing so this long-time user is blocked" and then we leave it there?

3) Similarly, after the block was lifted you said Mackan was "not entirely as cooperative as I would ask for." Do you think it's advisable to complain about a user you just blocked (unjustifiably in the view of several others, including checkusers) and their lack of cooperation? Do you really expect a user you incorrectly blocked to send you private information to clear them self? Obviously Mackan has now cleared their name via Alison.

This incident, combined with the recent block of Krimpet, makes me think you have no business being anywhere near a block button. I have a feeling others agree, and thus it might be a good idea to explain yourself a bit. I'm certainly open to legitimate explanations.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed this entire aberration, and spent a few minutes reviewing what happened. George, this was a horrible, horrible block, and one that was particularly so given the high standards of assurance you called for on the Mantanmoreland case. I note your apology, which is good, but it's useless unless you learn from your mistake. Please take more care with the block button in future - continuing bad blocks tend to lead to a desysopping, and I think the project would benefit more from your continuing to wield the mop (with care) than not wielding it. Neıl ☎ 12:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to strike out "I note your apology", as I don't believe you have actually made one. Neıl ☎ 12:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neil here. One of the specific concerns here for me is that someone was named in the block log, which is a permanent record. That is something that should be avoided unless there is absolute certainty, and maybe not even then. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, you and I have worked together cordially and productively in the past so it really pains me to say this but I think you messed up, big time. I think you owe a full recantation of what you said, and a full apology. Further, I'd urge you to in future not apply inconsistent standards... similar wording in an email is sufficient for a block vs. thousands of posts analysed to find multiple similarities is not sufficient??? That's not really a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you open to recall? —Random832 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you would voluntarily resign your position as admin? Bstone (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (and it's probably not worth much! Am I a respected user?) I view George as a victim in this. Mind you, I supported the unblock of Mackan. However, George has gotten caught up in an off wiki dispute that has spilled onto Wikipedia. The dispute on Wikipedia should have been taken care of two years ago, with the banning of the disputing parties. If that were done, this division of the community would not be taking place. I would feel bad for George if he were desysoped or recalled for getting caught up in this mess. It never should have gotten this far—but it has and it is time to end it. For your consideration. daveh4h 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really quick here, as I'm off-line most of today. I firmly believe that we're nowhere near the de-sysopping stage at all here. Let's please at least wait to see what George says here and take things from there. I'm certain that in the light of day, he'll see what happened here and will know what to do. Honestly, there's already been too much baying for blood in this whole MM/SH sorry saga, from all sides of the situation. So please, let's not do this - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of day (IE, having to think about it for a while) I have to agree. GWH has made a horrible mistake. This was an ill-considered block.. but as long as GWH A) Realizes his mistake, B) Apologizes fully to Mackan, and C) doesn't do this kind of stuff again.. there's no reason to take it any further. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alison. Further, I wish GWH would apologise but we typically don't hold people hostage for apologies. If he won't, he won't ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he does not then it shows he does not regret his overly hasty and baseless block of an excellent contributor. As such, in my opinion, he doesn't deserve the mop. Don't we hold admins to a higher standard? Bstone (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized, which is fine with me. I think it was poorly thought through for several reasons, but I'm not sure there's a serious history of this problem in particular, so in that sense I also agree with Alison and others. Hopefully he'll be more cautious in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add for myself then that I hope he considers that someone other than Bagley is actually concerned about the many incdendiary statements ("dangerous stalking and harassment," saying he's on par with jailed stalkers), whether one person believes them or not. That discussion can perhaps continue later or elsewhere. Mackan79 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Mackan79 - I don't dispute at all the idea that someone other than Bagley might be concerned about the statements. The unfortunate coincidence of phrasing was what fooled me. Either you were Bagley, in which case you should rightly be blocked for being him, or you were not, in which case you had every right to comment. You weren't.

To Lar - My apology was waiting on receiving enough information to disambiguate the situation as to whether I was factually wrong or operating with insufficiently convincing evidence. Alison and others provided enough to convince me I was wrong. I owe Mackan79 an apology and he's gotten it. I actually agree that admins not willing to apologize for mistakes is a community civility problem, and I hope that I am doing the decent thing here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad for the apology, but can you explain, as you see it, exactly why you are issuing a mea culpa as you say? Were you wrong to make the block based on the evidence you had, or was it an appropriate block in your view but it just so happened that you were wrong in the end, i.e. both you and Mackan were victims of circumstance? If the former, i.e. if you think the block was a poor one, a simple acknowledgment that you made a mistake and will avoid this type of block in the future puts an end to it I think. I'm really not trying to draw this out - I just think folks would want assurance from you that this kind of thing will not happen again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that honestly at the moment, though I can talk about it. It was clearly incorrect and against an innocent editor, for which I owed an apology at least and have done so. I have a pretty good track record at successfully IDing sockpuppets and have been handling a bunch of long term persistent abuse cases over the last year. I always keep in mind the possibility of mistakes. Apparently by random chance, there was a rather similar turn of language used.

Most of the time we see apparent similarities, they're legitimate and real.

I'm open to the question of whether I either was looking too hard for something here or used wrong criteria or judgement. A lot of people are grumpy about the MM case and the Duck test at the moment, but it's what's used actively by the admins who fight the long term abusers (of whom Wordbomb is statistically a very very small part). Admins who are actively fighting long term abusers have made some pretty bad missteps - Durova a few months ago, me here. I don't know if that's symptomatic of an attitude shift coming from doing too much wielding the banhammer.

Very few of the editors or admins involved are doing that job and have that perspective. But doing the job and having the perspective may ultimately put one at risk of wandering off the playing field.

So, I don't know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, evidence was submitted in the ArbCom case that SlimVirgin inappropriately and wrongly blocked WordBomb and she and David Gerard wrongly retaliated against and attacked editors who appeared to take WordBomb's side. So, in spite of this evidence of bad faith actions on the issue by other administrators, why were you so quick to block someone that you thought might be WordBomb? Mantanmoreland has behaved very badly, has contributed to the destruction of the reputations of SlimVirgin, David Gerard, and others who have acted in bad faith, but apparently feels absolutely no remorse for having done so. Thus, if you're looking to block someone, I think Mackan79 probably was the wrong choice. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...one block that was ill conceived is now considered to be a desysoppable offense...I wonder where the WR partisans were when Krimpet did her idiotic 3 day block on me? I didn't see them threatening her with desyopping or suggesting she recall, nor was their any cries of concern from them regarding my block log. In fact, Alison was rather defensive of her...no surprise. Cla68, surely Slim and Gerard's reputations are intact, regardless of your ongoing efforts to blemish them...maybe if you didn't follow her to animal rights related articles (oh, surely that is one of your editorial interests), your wikistalking might be less obvious.--MONGO 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GWH for your honest answer above which makes a lot of sense. And quickly to MONGO, though I can't speak to the Krimpet case you mention, I think part of the concern here was George's initial reaction after the block as much as the block itself. Now that he has apologized and admitted it was a mistake (which did not happen at first) I doubt anyone is much interested in talking about desysopping. I certainly think we can move on and simply see it as unfortunate fallout from the Mantan ArbCom case, which has indeed caused a lot of grumpiness as George says.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GWH wasn't acting maliciously and that is the key...but that is not how others seem to want to believe. If everyone would step outside their own little boxes and view things more objectively, then there wouldn't be these ongoing screams for sanctions...the lack of good faith is incredible. But as always Bigtimepeace, you bring calm and peace to almost every situation and that is commendable. Thank you.--MONGO 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, please - the facts! If you check above, it's quite clear that I'm petitioning for GWB to not be de-sysopped. Shame when the facts get in the way of another good rant - Alison ^❤ 07:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the recall thing goes any further, can we try a bit more discussion. Although GWH has made some mistakes, they aren't reaching the chronic stage and admins are allowed to make mistakes (not as if he used his tools against someone he was directly in a dispute with). I would like to see some mor eback and forth between the community and GWH before recall discussion came up again 9though there is no harm in asking) - if they didn't work, then look at further steps. I say this as the person who overturned the most recent action under dispute (though enacting consensus - it wasn't something I was going to do unilaterally). Viridae^Talk 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked 24.18.108.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for disruptive editing, and it seems that he's reset his router or logged on from elsewhere and is back as 64.46.9.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm basing this on the similar ranged of articles they've edited and the fact that the new one is bringing up just the same comments. The WHOIS traces to Vancouver instead of Olympia, but it's not out of reason he might have traveled there or contacted a friend to act as a meatpuppet. Given that he threatened to come back, this seems quite likely to me, though further input is welcome. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Allegations against WordBomb are thick on the ground, but no-one will give any details. Did WB murder someone? Did they do it before being blocked on July 7 2006? Or did they run over someone in a car? See how easy it is to make allegations, worthless ones? It should be just as easy to provide some proof, some facts, not just opinions. Can you do that, as a favour to me? (I am not a sock, of anybody, and I hope we can be friends.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's the official bogeyman around here, the subject of regular two minute hates. As such, no actual facts or evidence are actually necessary, and such things are to be discouraged because they might get in the way of a good intense hatred. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've been bold here.

You justifiably blocked Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs) on March 1. The editor has returned several times, via new accounts & rotating IPs. Rather than block the most recent incarnation, I've very recently offered to try to coach what I think may have been a case of an over-zealous, policy-ignorant newbie into an actual editor. I've laid out clear information on how to proceed effectively on the usertalk of an account I encouraged the user to make: Ramaanand (talk · contribs). I've explained further my actions & intent to other editors here and here, and am keeping a close eye on the situation. I will not hesitate to block the account if the prior disruptive activities resume. Please let me know if you have any objections, questions or comments about this plan. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to what's going on here. After an uncivil comment from the aforementioned user on my talk page when I explained some edits of his I reverted, I come to find out he had an indef-blocked sock that you blocked, a few suspecteds, and yet no block was placed upon the puppeteer's account. If the exchange on my talk shows that Wfgh is going to be uncivil because fact disagrees with his interpretation of history, and he has a history of socking, could you explain to me why he was never blocked? MSJapan (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Swinton circle, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton circle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. 217.134.225.37 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider lifting that rangeblock--or at least make it a soft rangeblock. I just checked, and that rangeblock took out a good chunk of New York City. Blueboy96 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one on the range 71.247.0.0/16 ... it resolves to Verizon. That rangeblock has locked out a bunch of users in New York City. Blueboy96 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is set anon-only. Wikzilla is confirmed to have used used IP's in ... 71.247.6, .7, .10, .13, .15, .224, .230, .231, and .234. If there were many innocent IP-only users, we haven't heard much from them on unblock-en-l, which is where the block note message says to go... If you have or know of specific sets of people affected and are reasonably sure they aren't Wikzilla in a wig, let me know, we can reach out to them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George: The change by Nabokov to Nuclear weapon design seems to be nonsense. He made the same change to the W48 article. Check out my comments here. What do you think? HowardMorland (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted the changes. HowardMorland (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]