Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

On Temple Lot, I reverted some edits by User:Rescirscir for the reasons I then provided on the talk page. In short, the edits included some claims about a living person that were unsourced. (Well, there were "sources", but they were either completely unrelated weblinks, links to geocities.com, or YouTube videos. I discussed the problems in more detail in my comment.)

User:Rescirscir responded with a somewhat cryptic comment on my talk page that I was being "monitored". I asked for clarification, and received a response on the article talk page that said I was "cyberstalking" and that he wouldn't argue with me because "I don't need to". After this, the editor included the following link: [1], which is a news release about the May 2008 passage of a Missouri anti-cyberstalking law.

As an admin, I haven't had much experience with legal threats, and I'm unsure of how serious this example would be, but I wanted to bring it here mainly because of the past history of the page. In isolation, I don't think this would have necessarily been a huge deal, but Temple Lot has a history of weirdness: User:Jsmith 51389 (who was probably the arsonist in question spoken of in the article) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats a number of months ago, and there's quite a history of various "redlinked" editors making similar (though far from identical) edits to the article in question (including some by User:Jeh akuse, who was blocked, and some by User:CH 82).

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that Administrators have certain different rights to observe users usage of a website. Otherwise it would descend into chaos. I would look at it as an idle threat mate. I know I'm a Brit anf as such have no idea on US law, but Admins have a certain job to do to keep the website safe for users. Imagine if it was someone continuously uploading paedophilic material, you would have to essentially stalk their edits to see how many times he does it, find out his location, etc. I hope I'm right otherwise its the end of this website. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions

I'm reopening this discussion to bring up some questions and a few points I think are necessary for people to think about before this is archived. I received a few emails about the subject of this thread that are bringing me back from retirement at least to discuss this. Currently I'm recovering from an illness and it's a bit difficult to concentrate, so I'll try to keep it brief, but these points trouble me:

1. The blocks to Curious bystander and Marx seem to be based on definitive checkuser information. Those seem like good blocks.
2. The blocks on WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive are partly based on easily manipulated IP usage -- WB74 using a cell phone or similar device and 300wacker using a workplace IP address used by an already-identified sockmaster. It seems to me that either user should be able to get a new account from home. Combined with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I'm OK with those.
3. The Kossack4Truth block bothers me a bit. Apparently that one was from home. There seems to be no evidence of socking other than K4T living in Chicago. If the block is about socking, that's insufficient. I suppose WP:DUCK behavior could be sufficient for a block, but I'd like to see that spelled out in detail, which is only fair. If the block is about behavior, then that should be justified with specific diffs, not general statements that K4T is behaving badly. There have been some statements about bad behavior in this thread, but they are made by other editors involved in disputes with K4T, and for that reason those statements are inherently unreliable. And I see very few diffs of bad behavior.
4. What bothers me most about the description of K4T's behavior is that many of the same statements could be made about other editors who happen to have been on the side of the complainants here. (I readily admit that the K4T group that's been blocked advocated roughly the same positions that I would have if I'd been participating at the ACORN talk page or on Talk:Barack Obama. Also, I received two blocks myself about a month ago after a dispute with Wikidemon, so in that sense, consider me "involved".) Besides socking, K4T is accused of rough treatment of others' comments on the talk page, moving them around and, I think, closing discussions -- just what Wikidemon was doing on the Talk:Barack Obama page. Incivility is another charge, and there's been a load of that on both sides on both the Obama and ACORN talk pages. I'll try to provide some diffs. If K4T is going to be indef blocked for combining this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIV behavior with alleged -- and unconfirmed -- sockpuppeting, then some kind of sanction should be applied to editors who are perpetrating much of the same behavior.
5. I get the sense that the admins doing the blocking are largely relying on vague recollections of past complaints and current, vague statements from involved editors without looking closely -- independently -- at the record on the talk pages. It would be good form for not only the complainants to cite specific diffs but for the blocking admins to do so. Providing specific diffs and specific reasons would be good form because (a) that helps avoid mistakes that lead to unfairness; (b) that helps someone unfairly blocked to mount a defense; (c) it offers proof to everybody else (like me, for instance) that some care and attention has gone into the decision to block -- it's important that Wikipedia not only try to be fair but that it be seen to be fair. Apperances matter, and this looks bad. Other editors further up on this thread have already complained. Even if every editor mentioned as a sock of this BrianFromPalatine is actually him, you'd want even the sockmaster to feel he'd been treated fairly -- I think that tends to reduce future bad behavior.
   • Regarding the be seen to be fair, I could not agree more. This is precisely the original point I was trying to make. indef blocks are an exceptional thing, and therefore require exceptional reasons and evidence. --Rebroad (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. The block of ImNotObama seems to have been done simply because that user came to the defense of a blocked user. That really doesn't pass the smell test. That should be reviewed by other admins. Also, the person who created ImNotObama should be able to start another account from the same computer; would someone please tell me if that's possible?
   • Apparently not. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ImNotObama. --Rebroad (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Bali ultimate has stated that User:Readbroad has an "extensive" socking record. That's not true. I see a single block for it, from more than a year ago. That statement should be redacted. It's this kind of inaccurate accusation that raises doubts about the blocks. GoodDamon's idea to block talk pages of the blocked users is also troubling.
   • I was blocked about a year ago on suspicion on sockpuppeting, which was later found to be untrue. Bali's personal attacks and premature archiving of talk pages are now getting to the point that I am considering proposing a community ban unless he starts behaving. --Rebroad (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are reasonable concerns that jusify keeping this thread opened longer. It seems to me that a strong case can be made even for K4T's block, but the case should be made. I don't have the strength right now for a long discussion, but I'll try to find those diffs I promised, or I'll redact the statement above. Please keep this thread open so these concerns can be addressed. I realize everyone's a volunteer here, but indefinite blocks deserve more attention to detail than we have here. And I'm not questioning any admin's good faith by raising these concerns. -- Noroton (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a case of WP:DUCK. In Kossack4Truth's case, a lot of his behavior was identical to that of old BryanFromPalatine socks, specifically claiming to be a left-winger while endlessly pushing a very non-neutral right-wing POV in the name of "truth." It's a slog, but go through some of BFP's old socks, and you'll find K4T was either another sock, or a twin brother. Then there was timing... 300wackerdrive edits during the day, from BryanFromPalatine's work IP address, and then Kossack4Truth edits in the evening. Never the two did meet, near as I can tell. As for making a sockmaster feel he's been treated fairly.... ehh, no. I just want his accounts blocked so he can't disrupt pages anymore. BryanFromPalatine is a banned user, as in permanently banned from Wikipedia. His socks are a block-on-sight kind of thing. As for ImNotObama, that account, which had never been here before, appeared all of a sudden to protest the blocking of the other socks, in the middle of some weird -- and frankly BFP-ish -- edits he was beginning on the Obama page. Again, looks like, "I'm really a liberal, guys! Only I think we should pick apart how his positions between the campaign and now have completely changed and he's going back on everything he ever stood for blah blah blah..." Same crap BFP socks always do. Now, I don't know if a quick checkuser on him verified that he was using the IP address of one of the other socks, but sure looks like a duck to me. --GoodDamon 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDamon, there are enough people on wikipedia that you'll often find some users' behaviours are similar to those of others. Hardly a reason for blocking! --Rebroad (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reading of the duck test, I now realise you are actually mis-applying the duck test. If you look at the original wp:duck page you'll see it's all about not avoiding "using labels" to describe things. It's NOT about "hypothesising" that something is the same thing just because shares characteristics. Anyway, WP:DUCK is just an essay, not a policy, so is not really relevant when discussing policies. --Rebroad (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what an old version of WP:DUCK has to do with this, but I'm not seeing anything in that that disagrees with me. All I'm saying is it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it sure is quacking. --GoodDamon 07:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for Bali, I think he was wrong. But it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with from this puppeteer. --GoodDamon 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing... In reviewing cases of other determined puppeteers, it looks like it's extremely common for a few more socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of other socks when a group of them get discovered and summarily dealt with. --GoodDamon 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder if your definition of a sockpuppet is any user who agrees with another user. --Rebroad (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my definition of a sockpuppet is any user who is another user. Look... ImNotObama showed up at the above incident report, having not been involved in any way, within minutes of the other sockpuppets being blocked. In that edit, he simultaneously announced 1) That he had voted for Obama (as if that had anything to do with this whatsoever) 2) That his IP address wasn't in Chicago (as if that makes any difference when dealing with a puppeteer who is known to be familiar with checkuser and how to avoid it) and 3) That he supported undoing the decision of the admins without having reviewed the edits of any of the accounts. This after having already established a pattern of editing consistent with BryanFromPalatine's liberal-who-pushes-conservative-POV variety of sockpuppet. Sure looks like another duck to me. --GoodDamon 07:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, GoodDamon wrote, under the heading, Why reopen?:

I thought I was effectively answering your questions. Look... I understand that you happen to agree with this particular puppeteer politically. But this isn't about politics, it's about long-term abuse of Wikipedia by a banned user. I understand your concerns about ImNotObama, but seriously, look at that user's edits and tell me if you think that's his first account? There's no need to rehash all this. It's done. Give it a rest. --GoodDamon 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDamon, do you know whether or not ImNotObama (INO) is BryanFromPalatine or an acceptable alternate account of some other editor? No, you don't. Do you know if INO is a former editor just returning? No, you don't. Sure, if the new editor was both suspicious and behaving pretty badly, there's a good reason to block. I don't see that there was a need do block that editor, and the possible harm is obvious -- especially if the person is not permitted to create a new account.

You're right, the issues here are not political. The issue is whether one group of editors is being favored over another group of editors, and whether blocks are being made without adequate examination of evidence (I'm not questioning administrators' motives). If there is evidence, diffs can be provided. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your disinterestedness, but I'd rather rely on the diffs along with the word of the admins who acted. I don't think clear explanations are too much to ask.

I explained why I was removing the blue box and reopening the sections just above [8], but Bali ultimate removed my comment[9], which I left I believe that's a violation of WP:TALK. This is actually a good example of the kind of rough treatment of other user's comments that editors were complaining about with regard to Kossak4Truth. When this kind of thing is taking place, it's a good reason for administrators to independently look into something before blocking rather than trust a complaining editor's perceptions. There isn't evidence that administrators did that.

it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with The blocked editors could make a good case for saying the same thing. -- Noroton (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. I was thinking the same thing. If allowance should be made, they should be made for both sides. It is hard work trying to see reason with someone with such a one-sided perspective. --Rebroad (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The blocked editor. Apparently, ImNotObama's behavior was suspicious enough -- he was obviously monitoring the AN/I, he responded so fast -- that administrators I have no reason to doubt whatsoever took one look at his already-established behavior and concluded that yes, indeed, this was a newly discovered sock, come to defend old socks as is typical behavior. So yes, I'd say I do know that User:ImNotObama is BryanFromPalatine, because the admins made that determination. By the way, ImNotObama's sixth edit was a junk report here of Wikidemon, this puppeteer's current favorite punching bag. I'd say that qualifies as both "suspicious and behaving pretty badly".

Now, as for the favoritism argument, I point out again... for what must be the thousandth time... that while one group of editors are not single-purpose, POV-pushing accounts, all the socks demonstrably are. That is why there is what you perceive as favoritism. Take a look at my contribution history: You'll find things from major rewrites to Scientology, to creating new articles for obscure Orthodox Jewish sects. You'll find an extensive history of vandalism-fighting, and if you look carefully you'll even figure out my true identity based on one particular article (which I try to avoid now, because I have a better understanding of WP:COI than I once did). Look at Wikidemon; the same. Look at Grsz11; the same. Look at the editors who aren't socks or SPAs; the same. That is why the admins "side" with one group over another. One group is helping the encyclopedia. The other appears to be a single banned user with an ax to grind. --GoodDamon 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being an SPA is good grounds for suspicion and scrutiny, but by itself it isn't grounds for blocking. Yes, it certainly looks like ImNotObama is/was an alternate account, but again, not reason in itself for blocking. I'm not saying SPAs shouldn't receive greater scrutiny and even have less leeway than regular editors. I'm saying that admins have relied so much on passively watching complaints come in to AN/I that constant complainers (Wikidemon, especially) have caused a certain warping, where Wikidemon's targets are treated more harshly than Wikidemon's allies, who he naturally doesn't complain about. Admins actively looking into the talk page and article histories would see actions by your allies that are in some ways similar to the accusations against the blocked editors. It's fundamentally unfair for one side to get blocked and for the other to get off scott free. Time for me to find some diffs to prove this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on then Noroton, let's see those diffs! --Rebroad (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page for ACORN, I see WorkerBee74 and 300Wackerdrive significantly less civil than Wikidemon, GoodDamon, Bali ultimate and others, and I see the first two escalating conflict. The last three did comment on editors when they should have stuck with commenting on edits, including quite a few comments accusing the first two of sockpuppeting, but the escalating and incivility were clearly perpetrated mostly by the first two, and it went on for some time. So as far as that page goes, at least, I have to take it back, and I've crossed out my initial comments just above about incivility. I haven't reviewed Talk:Barack Obama history over the past few months. -- Noroton (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please close this part too? Accounts of the sock/meatpuppet farm are all blocked. I doubt anyone is going to go along with unblocking them, but if anyone wants to champion them, they ought do so without repeating their attacks on the legitimate editors here. Noroton has an obsession with me as his favorite punching bag as well. Before the block:[10][11][12] "[will] drag that editor through every single dispute resolution forum that has any hope",[13] "You have a lot to fear...You really shouldn't have provoked me into revealing your edit history to other editors. As far as you're concerned, it won't matter whether I'm unblocked an hour from now or a week from now",[14][15] "I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening"[16][17][18] After the block: [19][20] This fixation on me is vexatious, disruptive, and as I said before it's attracting trolls.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

 Note: This board is not a chatroom. Is any further administrative action requested here? Any editor who just wants to talk and get clarifications, please approach the administrators who have taken any actions, and ask them for clarification. Any editor is remains dissatisfied after such discussion may make used of dispute resolution. Everyone should take note that this page is not part of formal dispute resolution. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was not started in order to chat. The blocks and rejected unblock requests involved at least three administrators: Akhilleus (blocked WorkerBee74, Kossack4Truth, 300wackerdrive, Curiousbystander and Marx0724), seicer (rejected ImNotObama's unblock request) and MastCell (blocked ImNotObama, templated Curiousbystander's user page, rejected unblock request by Kossack4Truth). When blocks were made, the discussion thread above this one was pointed to as justification. Is any further administrative action requested here? Yes: (1) review of the blocks by other admins; (2) I've asked all the admins to comment here in this central spot, to give specific reasons for their blocks of Kossak4Truth and ImNotObama. (3) As yet, there is no cogent explanation for K4T's and ImNotObama's indefinite blocks. That should always be provided. Note that Arkhilleus wrote above: I welcome review and discussion of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 I've brought up specific, serious questions that seem worth answering. Administrators should have a full opportunity to address them. (Incidentally, although Curiousbystander's user page was given a sock-account template [22], I see nothing on that user's talk page from Arkhilleus informing the user of the block or how to make an unblock request.[23] The block was made. [24]) -- Noroton (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)made small correction -- Noroton (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speak to my part, in response to Noroton's request. Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) has been a long-term problem account. In retrospect, some of the behavioral ties to the BryanFromPalatine sockfarm are fairly clear, but it was off my radar as it had been awhile since the relevant ArbCom cases. Specifically, the agenda, the claims of being a member of DailyKos combined with relentlessly over-the-top partisan editing from the opposite perspective, combined with the checkuser information (which is complementary but not conclusive by itself) argue strongly, to me, that this account is either an out-and-out sock of the others, or at least behaviorally indistinguishable and a "functional" sockpuppet (c.f. here). Even putting all of this aside, K4T was an example of the worst sort of partisan editing and game-playing that afflicts this site, and was in the process of abusing his 11th or 12th chance when the sockpuppetry issue came to light.

Now to my specific actions: I declined this unblock request on K4T's talk page. There were a couple of issues here: first, the {{unblock}} request was placed by ImNotObama (talk · contribs), rather than K4T. That's quite odd; add the classic "I'm an Obama supporter" disclaimer and the account history of ImNotObama (see next paragraph), and the fact that the unblock request did not address the merits of the block per se but argued for a reduced block length on vague grounds, and I felt that this request was properly rejected.

Now to ImNotObama (talk · contribs), whom I indefinitely blocked as a sock. This account was about 3 days old, pursued the usual K4T/BFP talking points, and their 4th or 5th edit was a reasonably sophisticated un-archiving of an AN/I thread, followed shortly by posting the {{unblock}} request for K4T. In addition, there's the immediate "go ahead and checkuser me" response to the block. All of this suggests that this is not a new user. I think anyone with experience dealing with sockpuppetry who looks at this contrib history is likely to reach the same conclusion. Whether this is an out-and-out sock, a meatpuppet, or a proxy for K4T et al is perhaps largely academic; this is functionally, pretty clearly, an account directly related to the other abusive socks, and properly indef-blocked in my opinion.

Outside opinions and review are welcome; I'm happy to elaborate if anyone feels it would be useful. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MastCell. Although I still think it would be better to present diffs comparing K4T with BryanfromPalatine (and diffs of misbehavior), I trust your judgment. Are there any ways the two are similar that haven't been mentioned previously? I agree that K4T was an example of the worst sort of partisan editing and game-playing that afflicts this site, but I'll note that there are other examples of editors who fit that bill, and when it's combined with violations of behavioral policies in the future, I hope it will be given similar weight.

ImNotObama certainly appeared to be an account of someone already familiar with Wikipedia (but that could have been nearly any other editor). Wikipedia allows alternate accounts if the accounts follow policy. The account didn't make a single abusive edit. this is functionally, pretty clearly, an account directly related to the other abusive socks Because the editor came to their defense? I've come to K4T's "defense" here and so has Rebroad, so it's not anything more than suspicious that a new account would do that. Editing the Obama talk page is also no big deal, and there wasn't enough of it to establish a connection. pursued the usual K4T/BFP talking points I haven't seen evidence of that; could you elaborate? Absent checkuser evidence, clear WP:DUCK evidence or misbehavior, I think you or a consensus of other admins should unblock. -- Noroton (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of socks in project-related discussions (such as policy debates and AN/I threads) is generally considered inappropriate (see, for example, this ArbCom finding). Certainly, a sock used primarily to agitate on AN/I and elsewhere for a specific unblock, and secondarily to support the blocked account's agenda, seems abusive. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is a consensus to unblock. I would have declined the unblock request and I endorse Mastcell's actions here. As far as "checkuser evidence", the jury will always be out on that. Barring some obvious screwup/naivete on the part of the sockmaster, checkuser will usually just present limited technical evidence for a proposition, not something conclusive. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think unblocks are warranted in these cases. It is easy enough to block later. It is also easy to say "block" when one doesn't agree with content of an article. It is also equally easy to say "unblock" when you do. Absent real evidence of sockpuppetry, blocks appear capricious and arbitrary.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe there is "real" evidence of sockpuppetry here, and that these blocks prevent further disruption of the encyclopedia (which is, after all, the rationale behind any block). MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well just let me thank you for your public declaration that you did not believe that I was a sock puppet after the spurious accusation had been made else where. That is the spirit of assume good faith.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kossack4Truth and the guy using the mobile/cell should definitely be unblocked. My aunt uses a cell connection for her internet access almost exclusively due to where she lives. I imagine it is pretty common for a lot of rural people. As for the others, I looked a bit at the BryanfromPalantine "sock farm" and the original accusations (which seem a bit spurious at first glance), and it looks to me like it has just become a "boogyman" - where the accusation of being "BryanfromPalatine" is enough to permanently stain anyone. In other words - it is a quick and easy way to get someone you don't like permanently banned with minimal scrutiny. The only ones that should stay banned are the two which are confirmed socks by CheckUser.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just archived very nearly a megabyte of arguments from the talk page. This represents just 3-4 months of discussion.

The cause of this seems to be that User:David Tombe was unblocked.

User:Brews ohare actually requested that he be unblocked.[25] To say that he enjoys the argument is a bit of an understatement.

These 2 users are basically using the talk page as a discussion forum. The article doesn't seem to be improving noticeably.

I'd appreciate it if David Tombe was reblocked. He's basically an extremely non-consensus POV warrior that has been blocked 11 times for various infractions including multiple incivilities, several times 'permanently' and was only unblocked this time at an admins discretion.[26] I do not believe that this unblock experiment has been successful, and I would appreciate it if he was reblocked at an admins discretion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is causing further problems, it might be worthwhile to contact Antandrus (the unblocking admin) directly on their talk page, and asking them to review the unblock. From a quick glance through the various pages, familiarity with the case would look to be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Tombe appears to be looking to take this extended discussion off-wiki anyway[27], which would serve everyone's purposes. Certainly the enormous discussions on that talk page have been outside the generally-accepted limits for talk-pages, so if they can carry on their arguments elsewhere then everyone's happy. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my own personal experience this Wolfkeeper fellow is just as big a problem as Mr Tombe. The problem is that the editors, Wolfkeeper, and Brews Ohare are just as much a part of the problem as Mr Tombe. They refuse to achnowledge that there is a legitimate difference of opinion. They ignore his points and keep the argument going just to keep their opinions the ones that dominate the article. This is not really about compromise or trying to come to an understanding, it is about enforcing a certain scientific opinion upon wikipedia. I think that the other editors, including Wolfkeeper who are involved should be blocked from editing the centrifugal force page. My reason is that it is clear that the article should be a fair and balanced presentation. I say block all the current editors and start over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.58.151 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in the light of Mazca's diff, we can probably consider this closed. I don't see a need for further administrator intervention at this point anyway. EyeSerene^talk 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is not an occasion to issue blocks, nor to single out individual editors. As long as the philosophical discussions can take place in another venue, there is no cause for action. Acroterion _(talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Mazca says, I would now prefer to take the discussion to private e-mails behind the scenes. But while I'm on here, I'd like to clarify what this argument is about in a nutshell. There are conflicting sources in the literature about centrifugal force. I have admitted that there exist some sources which are contrary to my own point of view. But I have been finding it nearly impossible to get a clear and open admission of the contents of sources which support my own point of view. The principle one is Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' which deals with planetary orbits and centrifugal force without any mention of rotating frames of reference. All I was trying to do was to get the facts on the table in order to try and work out a compromise balance in the presentation. I wanted one simplified, shortened, and coherent single article on centrifugal force.

It ill becomes Wolfkeeper to come here and request that I be blocked at his own pleasure merely because I am in opposition to his point of view. Wolfkeeper is the one who split the article and he has a vested interest in maintaining this split which is merely two different angles on the same topic. Wolfkeeper didn't have a single legitimate ground upon which to make this request. David Tombe (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your note on Antandrus's talk page, and left you a note as well. The complaint was grounded in the fact that your talk-page discussion is off-topic and so lengthy as to become disruptive (see WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages). This is a legitimate complaint, and presuming bad faith and ulterior motives on Wolfkeeper's part is really not the most helpful way to go. Let's not extend this thread unnecessarily. EyeSerene^talk 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene, The debate was going nowhere because it was going round in circles, and because not all participants were being consistent. I don't recall that it went off-topic at any point. I think that you were premature in accepting Wolfkeeper's allegation in this regard. And even if it had gone off topic, that was no grounds to single me out in particular. So I disagree with your analysis that Wolfkeeper's complaint was legitimate. It's like as if you are saying 'Wolfkeeper can complain against you, but don't you dare complain against him'. That may not be what you intended , but that's the way it came over. The assuming of the bad faith was clearly a two way thing. I have pulled out of the debate for the reason that I have realized it was futile. It was going to have to end sooner or later and now is as good a time as any. David Tombe (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel singled out here; you're perfectly right that there were a number of editors perpetuating the talk page discussion, but Wolfkeeper's complaint specifically concerned you. My response simply addressed his complaint, which I'm afraid was legitimate. Although Brews ohare acknowledges that the debate has led to some improvements in the article, this is excessive by any standards. It was on-topic only in as much as it concerned the article subject, but far too much of the talk page was (before archiving) taken up by editors trying to convince one other of their interpretations of the subject, as opposed to suggesting specific improvements to the article. It might help to take another look at the link in my previous post.

In contesting Wolfkeeper's complaint, you suggested he had ulterior motives in making it; in fact, you make some fairly strong accusations about his editing ethics and neutrality. These are very much out of synch with our policies of civility and no personal attacks, which you're already well aware of, having been blocked for violating them before. He too makes some pretty strong statements, but unfortunately your editing history does not make them easy for you to refute. If you're going to accuse editors in good standing of inappropriate behaviour, you absolutely need to supply proof.

If you really want to continue this, we can. However, I'd strongly suggest that, since we all seem to agree that your helpfulness in offering to take the debate off-site and in undertaking to stop contributing to derailing the talk page has resolved the situation, I fear you may end up talking yourself into difficulties. EyeSerene^talk 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry EyeSerene, but you're quite out of order here. If Wolfkeeper's complaint specifically concerned me, the question should have been asked why? And what? David Tombe (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC) David Tombe (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to argue yourself into another (and probably final) block? Most of those who've commented in this thread were happy to regard the matter as closed... except apparently you. You've subsequently attacked the editor who made the complaint, (without supplying any proof of your allegations) and now appear to be suggesting that you've been treated unfairly. Have you actually taken any notice at all of what's been said above? Do you honestly think that, in glossing over your talk-page disruption and deciding to give you the benefit of doubt, I've been unfair to you? You're very welcome to seek review of my action (or inaction), and as always any other interested editor or admin is free to comment here too. You have to be aware though that if, in the light of your previous record, I'd decided to apply a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:TALK guidelines (not to mention article content guidelines such as WP:FRINGE and WP:OR), your account would already be blocked. You've been offered a 'Get out of jail free' card. My advice is to take it. EyeSerene^talk 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't block him for something like that. Yeah, he's a bit of a fool to not just let it go, but jebus crimany, blocking someone based on WP:TALK? Thicker skin, people. I don't believe David has any ill intent here, and is simply speaking his mind. He's not being uncivil, naming editors is not always a personal attack, and yes, he's allowed to believe differently than you do when it comes to reflecting on this situation.

We all understand that this would be better if the situation was just left alone to die, but don't threaten the guy simply because he still wishes to discuss some parts of it.

Wolf saying things like "I've just archived very nearly a megabyte of arguments from the talk page. This represents just 3-4 months of discussion. The cause of this seems to be that User:David Tombe was unblocked." does strike me as a bit.. well, I'll refrain from saying so no one yells NPA at me. He comes in here and asks that another user be blocked because he's talking too much... what? I don't care what David's block log says, any reasonable user can understand David's frustration and place his comments here into context. The fact that someone's been blocked in the past shouldn't negate being understanding. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's blocking anyone. The sentiment I've been trying to get across in my last three posts is "when you're in a hole, stop digging" - or perhaps more accurately, "having just got yourself out of a hole, don't be too keen to dive straight back in". Since the message wasn't getting over, I felt I had to be rather more forthright than I normally would. I appreciate David Tombe's frustration at being singled out in the original complaint, but I believe that trying to reopen the issue would only end badly for him; the point was, if sanctions had been handed out originally (which everyone agreed would have been an over-reaction, and was in any case unnecessary), David Tombe might not have been the only editor to suffer, but given his record may well been the only one to suffer significantly. Best to let sleeping dogs lie. Incidentally, we do block editors for failing to follow the behavioural guidance on WP:TALK all the time, as it encompasses things like WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL etc. I hope this clarifies things for you. EyeSerene^talk 17:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a very simple question:[28]. The question was clear and legitimate. The answer was a 12 hour block for apparently having had the impertinence to ask it. I can think of no other place on Earth where a person would be barred from discussing a claim put forth by another Editor in support of a content edit to the encyclopedia. Is there a rule that prohibits one from discussing supporting evidence to a content edit? 75.49.223.52 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this thread [29] gives the background of this block. The IP and User:Arcayne were engaged in a dispute, and Connolley appears to have decided the IP was wrong enough to be blocked [30], and the IP's question was the final straw. Connelley did warn [31] the account a day in advance. But, to impose a block after the IP asked a polite question is, in my opinion, problematic. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a polite troll. looie496 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, WMC shouldn't have made the block (COI). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just because you disagree doesn't make them a troll. If you want to make that accusation provide background. I see allegations, but I also see a mention that CUs have failed. The question seems perfectly legitimate.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A polite question that contains no policy violations, such as outing someone or something like that, should not be the last straw that earns a block. Cla68 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject (EdJohnston told me that this was going on), I was unaware that the anon had been blocked, but I can't say I am not surprised. While it sounds like a PA, I've had to deal with this anonymous user since March, and this person is the poster child for blocking. Yes, the anon is polite, but politeness is moot compared to the stalking of my edits (which the anon has), the attacking of my (and only my) edits and background at every given opportunity.

Cla68, the content of the 'last straw' email from the anon to WMC was the same sort of complaint and baseless accusations that have been offered by the anon in various articles, article discussions and wikiprojects since March. William has no conflict of interest; I had presented him, as per his request, proof that the anon was stalking my edits as well as making various and continuous personal attacks towards/about me (viewable here). After reviewing the long history of the anon's behavior, WMC gave the anon a final warning, imploring him/her to "see sense". William additionally removed a personal attack by the anon from article discussion. The anon chose to respond shortly thereafter (less than four hours) by again attacking me with unrelated grievances (my educational background and a cite that I didn't even add to an article). As this was precisely the same sort of crap the anon has been perpetrating for over even months (and the last block for such behavior had been 31 hours), I think William was - if anything - too lenient. Of course, I am biased; William M Connolley is not.

I should point out that my very first block in Wikipedia two years ago was given out by William (I was new, but I deserved it), so I am not his buddy or pal, but I do find him to be polite, fair and scrupulously honest. The anon, who hides behind IP addresses to avoid admin scrutiny - despite being told by half a dozen editors and admins to get an account - cannot make the same claim. It bears pointing out that the anon has managed to hold onto the same IP address for over a week now, which indicates that the IP-swapping is not the "uncontrollable feature" of the user's ISP that the anon has used as excuse for the two dozen IP addresses in the past eight months. The anon chooses to conceal their editing footprint. While that is not socking, per se, it is an awfully sneaky (yet ultimately ineffective) way to avoid having your edit history scrutinized by an investigating admin. That, coupled with the numerous blocks for trolling, is cause enough for concern.

William has acted quite correctly, if not a bit more forgiving than the anon deserves. "Imperious" is not a word I would use to ever describe William or his actions. He's been here practically since Wiki opened for business, and I would trust few people better to know how to act, wiki-wise, than him. This is the anon, throwing a tantrum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread the anon's question again to see if contained baseless accusation. Well, maybe, but it's phrased in a way that doesn't attack you in an incivil manner. It may be true that that IP is being a pain in the neck. But, remember, blocking is a last resort. Another problem is that blocks seem to happen more often to new or anonymous users than to "established" editors (whatever that really means). If the anon keeps going around asking questions that politely, and no one responds to them, which was probably the correct course of action in this particular case, then there wouldn't be an issue here. If the anon actually violates a policy, such as 3RR'ing you, vandalizing an article, calling you a *#$%^, or something along those lines, then block them to correct their behavior. But, if the anon continues to voice their disagreement with questions phrased that politely, then just ignore the editor if you must. Cla68 (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon was blocked for being disruptive over a long period, and will be blocked again if he persists. Repeatedly asking the same questions to no purposes but to annoy is disruptive. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, remeber? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you provide the diffs where it was repeatedly asked?--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon, me, was not disruptive. This is what disruptive looks like:[[32][33][34]]. Listing IP addresses and puffing them up with stuff like this [35][36][37][38](and that's just a sample) is simply wrong. Arcayne is not telling the truth or acting in Good Faith - he has been challenged on his "List" before, it's a fabrication. I have claimed all my IP's - never in any article will you see anything but absolute consistency and distinct identifiable editing on my part. Read these Checkusers - you'll see me claiming my IP's while the Admin asks why the CU? [39][40][41] 'Never' has he listed the vandal IP's officially - he only throws them out in his wave of attacks meant to bury under the sheer weight of his supposed "evidence". He is an accomplished Wikilawyer, adept at gaming the system. Arcayne has dragged me through at least a dozen forums and administrators talk pages and every once in a while like here, an admin looks at all the text on the screen and before even allowing me to defend - pronounces guilt. In this instance Mr. Connelly is simply not responding to the charge, he remains aloof and not interested in listening. Fine - except if he can't be bothered he should have remained neutral, or at least consider the fact that he could have been mistaken by another editors manipulations.75.49.223.52 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but one of the basic defenses at being lumped together with a number of IP addresses that might not be yours is to set up an account - which the user has been asked to do a half-dozen times. The user has claimed almost every IP address they have been RfCU'd about, and unrelated name accounts from RfCU were not included in my complaint to WMC. I suspect (but of course cannot prove) that were the user to register an account, the blowback from his often uncivil criticism and behavior would have him/her blocked/banned in short order. That he has been the subject of at least three RfCU is an indication to link the anon with socks is further proof that the user can in fact manipulate when their IP address changes. In point of fact, the anon has retained the same IP for over a week now; it is advantageous for him/her to do so. Were it not, the IP currently being used would go silent, and a new one would pop up, as it had in at least seven different situations. We may never know how many IP addresses the user has used.

Not to point out the obvious, but the fact that (s)he is polite here ever so often is akin to wearing a shirt and tie on occasion; it isn't the usual tenor of his/her posts, and they made users like PelleSmith eventually leave the Project. And frankly, posting a comment in WIkiProject: Oxford (w/out corresponding suggestion to me) calls attention to the anon user's outright libel about my educational background. It fairly says that the user isn't here to build an encyclopedia, but to win. Clearly, part of that victory is for them to somehow 'get me'. I don't mind telling you all that I find that pretty creepy and frightening, actually. It's like having my own personal Grawp.

The anonymous user's best course of action is to re-focus their efforts on building an encyclopedia. It would be splendid if they could find areas to edit where I am not at, but frankly, unless they are posting from the familiar '75.-related' IP, I might never know. I would also suggest that the user do what (s)he has been advised to do for at least eight months - start an account. In fact, I would suggest that it be a criteria for continued editing; the user is far too involved in what (s)he calls the "social networking aspect" of Wikipedia - an average of filing more than one AN/I a month simply negates that argument - to maintain aloofness without arousing suspicion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was allegedly repeated and on-going, which is what caused the block. So I'm going to repeat that again, please provide the diffs of the repeated and on-going. He was certainly snide in his comment 4 months ago, but if thats all its been, then i'd need to see more to get anywhere near the remotest hint of a block here.--Crossmr (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, wasn't the uncivil remark again questioning the veracity of my educational background and attacking me in the Fitna (film) article discussion wasn't enough? WMC did say to knock off the incivility, just one of a chorus over the past eight months.

I could provide the list of Diffs where the anon was blocked less than a month ago and then again less than a week ago. For a full list, you could go to WMC's usertalk page. The post takes up some space, and I wouldn't want to create more of a tangential conversation by listing what a busy bee the an on has been since March. The diff presented to WMC can be seen here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fitna link is an attack? You incorrectly targeted the IP as a sock of someone and were wrong. For that he felt harassed and stated it (politely) and provided diffs. I don't know if you actually harassed him or not, but that is how he felt.I don't remotely see any attack in that diff. As for him questioning your qualifications, can someone provide me the diff of the edit you make that causes him to question that? If you were indeed making an edit and claiming your education as supporting evidence for the edit, then your education becomes fair game. Sorry but if this is all there is to base this block on this is looking extremely suspicious. You make comments like this The user has been advised (or outright ordered) on at least five different occasions to start an account; the user still prefers not to, and that begs the suspicious question of 'why' the anon doesn't. Which is an utter lack of good faith, anons aren't required to get accounts and we have more than one long time contributor who edits only from an IP. Do you have some CU evidence tying all these accounts together? or any of them?--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have hoped that William M. Connolley would have remembered that it is injudicious for an already involved admin to react to a third parties comments with an sysop action; if it was an obvious policy violation another admin could easily have been contacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure where the Georgre-WMC arbcom sufficiently parallels this matter, LessHeard; in the matter you linked, William extended the block of someone who was attacking him. In this matter, the anon was attacking me. The only way that William was "involved" is that he asked for evidence and, upon viewing that evidence, issued a warning, and subsequently a block for violating that warning. As far as I know, admins block folk who disregard their specific warnings, and the admin isn't involved in the disagreement between third parties. Again, William is pretty darn level-headed and, despite being a little too proactive in regards to Giano's "idiosyncrasies", seems to have acted scrupulously here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a parallel certainly, but perhaps an instance where WMC may have requested a sanity check before acting upon the third parties response - if I was "nudged" by some of the superficial similarities it is certain that others were too. There seems to be a concern voiced above that the specific question did not contain policy violations, that WMC acted too quickly to block over it, and WMC also commented that the repeated question was "annoying"... Was it too much to ask another admin to look over the matter?

However, it appears that otherwise this matter has become quiet - and I am therefore also happy to allow it to fade away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was only stepping back to allow Mr. Connolley time to respond, he has yet to to. Nor have the repeated requests for Diffs from Crossmr been responded to.

And Arcayne, it was not an "uncivil remark questioning the veracity of your educational background." It was the utter impeachment of the supporting citation you yourself introduced to enter, drive and retain a content edit to the Encyclopedia. Nothing from the specific edit to the degree you claimed to base it on was true. The degree is not granted by the institution and never has been, - and the edits themselves, your insistence that the EU is an NGO, or that penultimate means climax are, like the claimed degree's, demonstrably untrue. If you base a content edit on your purported specific degree, why would you express surprise when your very own supporting citation is questioned? No one forced you to make it up or pushed you into insisting upon a content edit using it as your sole basis. Your accusations against me are equally baseless, yet your insistence equally confident and forceful. Please provide Crossmr with the diffs he requests, it's only a shame that we can't go through all of your claims - we both know how very little of your big bucket of mud is true. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You guys do what you want. I am tired of dealing with the anon's unending bullshit, and am going to step back a bit, before I lose my cool.

Block him, don't block him, whatever. He isn't going to do what you want him to, anyway - he's already shown that - and he'll be back here at ANIin another month or two calling another person "imperious" or worse. William was right (and Crossmr has the link he requested, if anyone was curious) to block the anon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of the claim as requested by Crossmr at 01:25, 15 November.

It began when Arcayne incorrectly stated, "the EU is ... actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. ... we do not link flags to NGO's", he was politely and clearly corrected by Editor Kapow, "f) The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. it does not 'act on behalf' of any single state; it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE." Arcayne then cited himself, f - Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,[42]. The claimed multiple degrees even change from time to time, "I have more than a passing familiarity with the subject,PashaGol. I have two undergraduate degrees in both History and Political Science from Oxford and having done post-grad work and worked in the region for over a year."[43] The institution was again specifically cited here to support an incorrect edit, "With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English. My understanding of the word is how it is actually supposed to be used in writing... penultimate being the climax of the story."[44] And is again mentioned here,"I went to school at Oxford. I am aware of Britwit, and the differences betwixt it and American humor."[45] as well as here, "I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted". It's actually three degrees that he's claimed so far, two of which are not even offered at Oxford - they simply do not exist. Additionally the edits he uses his claim to support were also wrong. He uses his claim of an Oxford degree to degrade those he converses with, he makes the claim often, the claim is not made consistently - the degrees change, and he's just flat out wrong on the content he uses his claim to support. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely agree that there are some discrepancies in what arcayne has claimed and I still haven't seen any provided evidence to show this alleged on-going and unending trolling. I've seen one comment 4 months ago that was snide and a comment now which didn't violate any policy. Currently I think the blocking admin has to seriously explain this as its beginning to look more and more suspicious. I also believe arcayne should seriously clarify his qualifications if he wants to use them in debate (which really they don't belong in anyway). We already had a major incident where someone misrepresented themselves on wikipedia. Inconsistencies like that make me nervous.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it was pointed out on the occasion of the Int'l Relations and Poli Sci claim (as distinct from his other claim to a History degree in an edit war over a history related edit) that he used to drive and retain an incorrect content edit in a mainpage that Oxford simply does not offer the courses [46], I suggested that one would have taken the long standing and famous PPE. Arcayne immediately took up on this, "if I choose to represent my PPE and my associate's degrees in a form that folk will understadn". So he has now claimed degrees in Political Science, International Relations, History, Politics, Philosophy and Economics. I'll also add that Oxford does not offer "associate degrees". 75.49.223.52 (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP, ANI is not the project page to talk about this stuff. Meanwhile I think your wikilawyering is getting a bit thick. However, editors shouldn't flaunt themselves as authorities in anything, for many and sundry reasons: Let reliable sources have their sway. If you want to cite your degree, write something and publish it elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, this anon is the old anti-Arcayne harasser? I vaguely remember there was something of the sort that went a couple of months back, but I had lost sight of it. (Arcayne, if you have the diffs ready, perhaps you could point me to where this first occurred). If this is the case I'm thinking of, please treat the anon as indef-banned, everybody. Longterm, nasty harassment. Anybody ranting on about Arcayne's claimed or real or alleged academic qualifications should be blocked on sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... that rings a bell, and upon review the diffs provided of the April edits certainly point toward that matter. However, neither Arcayne and certainly not WMC - whose brief comments here have not been exceedingly helpful - have brought it up. If it is the anti-Arcayne commentator, then, yes, blocks are in order. However, the central and original issue (and never mind who may have brought it up) is that "reactive actions" by admins reflect poorly upon the sysop concerned, and especially if said admin seems unwilling to explain themselves period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the biggest problem. I'm still having trouble finding out exactly what this IP has done. There has been a claim made, and some blocks provided, but for the most part diffs of actually behaviour issues aren't that compelling or many. I've basically been told "here is the contrib list of 20-30 IPs go find it yourself". The first random one I clicked on showed no problem edits, so I am not about to go dig through who knows how many contribs to try and find the problem edits and make the case for them. The admin who made the block shouldn't have made it because of his involvement and frankly I don't know if anyone should have really made it at this point. I'd recommend a RFCU and if exactly what happened here can be hammered out and no real justification for the admins actions can be found it might be necessary to examine him further. We have these policies and procedures for a reason, no admin is above them and any that act like they are, are questionable.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus here is that the block was wrong. I suggest that Connelley be warned not to repeat the behavior and that a repeat may result in a desysopping. Case closed for now. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that you can't spell. No-one has taken up your suggestion, which is sensible of them. Your "closure" of this means nothing; the question rumbles on at [47] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks.

For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Wikipedia. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in^[talk] 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in^[talk] 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong. Violation only if the good hand is an admin/admin candidate or the bad hand is specifically demonstrated as disruptive or editing for the purpose of stirring up controversy or participating in internal policy-political discussions. Merely having two accounts for more and less controversial areas, as this appears to be according to User:Vivin, isn't a violation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I never knew Wiki rules permitted accounts used solely for edit-warring. Please do point me to any existing policy that allows this. Btw, theblock log of Googlean indicates the account is stirring up controversy and his edit log indicates he is fighting political battles.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP case filed. --vi5in^[talk] 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlean has been blocked before for edit warring. It is interesting to see that the bad account hasn't been indef blocked yet. Vivin is correct here.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So one account is used to edit war, while the other isn't? Yes, this is a violation of WP:SOCK. Khoikhoi 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts blocked, googlean indefinitely and Avinesh for one week based on linked confirmation above, and disruptive edit warring, attempting to deceive and obfuscate disruptive editing, and generally trying to be too cute by half about explaining it away. Additional confirmation would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Glenn Stokowski (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

This new account has 34 edits so far - 24 are aggressive WP:SOAPBOX comments on Talk:Pedophilia and the other 10 appear to be distractions - minor spelling changes on various topics.

Whether the new account is a new user or a sock is unknown, though the writing style and content are similar to a couple banned users who edited the pedophilia-related topics.

• first edit (and later edits) - claims that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation"
• 3rd edit or 4th - threatens to make "major changes to the entire article"
• describes the mainstream DSM as a "cultural courioisty" [sic]
• repeatedly describes pedophilia as a cultural issue, not a scientific or medical issue, contrary to all mainstream references
• in multiple comments, states that pedophilia is analogous to homosexuality: [48], [49], [50] - here are a couple gems:
  • "Once homosexuality was accepted as normal, then all arguments against pedophilia immediately become obsolete."
  • "Same goes for homosexuality or any other sexual variation."
  • "Most pedophiles also find women sexually attractive, so there is no necessary result in harm even in this society. Homosexuality is more problematic if we look at the facts, they have more psychological problems and physical disease than heterosexuals in general, so you're treading on very thin ice here."

That's the direction of this user's comments. Since they're all in that one talk-page section, it's easy to see them all by reviewing the section rather than through additional individual diffs. Several editors have pointed out on the talk page in detail the ways that the new account's comments are off-track, but he has continued to press his fringe agenda.

I request that administrators please review the pedophilia-focus and overly aggressive initial approach of this new account.

Thanks for checking it out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the edits and left a very gentle reminder concerning our policies. At present he has not stepped over the line. I and others will be watching. No opinion on whether he is a sock. JodyB _talk 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing it. I was not requesting any particular action, or a block. My intent with this incident report was for admins to be aware of this account, hopefully that's all that's needed. Based on the history of other accounts that started out this way though, it appears unlikely that this will not escalate, so please do keep this account on the radar. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia and related article - disruption has commenced

Disruptive editing by the above user has now commenced. After being warned by JodyB, and told by multiple editors on Talk:Pedophilia that his sources are fringe and his changes do not have consensus, the user moved large sections of the article to Child Sexual Abuse. He was reverted by myself once, and also by another editor who also left a level-2 warning on his talk page, to which he responded beligerantly. The tone and style of his response indicates that he is an experienced user.

Glenn Stokowski has also reverted two editors who undid his non-consensus changes, and marked his major removal of information as a "minor edit".

I'm not going to continue reverting the damage, because I will not edit-war.

This now requires administrative intervention, please help. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else reverted the changes prior to my getting there, but I've left another note regarding consensus and encouraged him to continue the discussion without making the edits prior to reaching agreement. If it continues, post here again; I'll monitor as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Glenn Stokowski for edit warring after he reverted to his preferred version once again, almost immediately after another administrator initiated discussion on his talk page. I hesitate to consider this resolved, however; more review may be needed. Risker (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. He doesn't seem to get that "consensus" on a topic is not measured in how long you've been talking about it. That could prove problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with both of the above comments, it's not likely the situation is fully resolved. But aside from that - thank you, Tony and Risker and the other editors who helped with this tonight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know, I've extended it to indef for disruptive behaviour and pro-pedophile activism. I've also let ArbCom know about it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can agree with the first 24 hour block, I don't think it was necessary to immediately jump to indef. Reblocks are cheap, and helpful editors are hard to come by. If there's even a chance that a troublesome editor can be reformed, I think he should be given a second chance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's little chance of reform for a pro-pedophile activist. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. Ryan is correct, this account is not an ordinary troublesome editor. Its disruptive agenda was clearly visible starting with its first edit. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this block. The things this user was saying were just...well... Let's just say I had to remind myself to stay professional while responding to him. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR^talk 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: [[::User:Henrywinklestein|Henrywinklestein]] ([[::User talk:Henrywinklestein|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Henrywinklestein|contribs]]), [[::User:15thSt|15thSt]] ([[::User talk:15thSt|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/15thSt|contribs]]) and [[::User:Yellabina|Yellabina]] ([[::User talk:Yellabina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Yellabina|contribs]]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Wikipedia policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional.

Having said that, the problem that looms over all others is the libellous smearing of editors as we're seeing yet again in this case. Along with the jeering at attempts to build collegiate relationships, one would really think admins knew better than to behave in this way. PR^talk 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit war and noting by reference Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can avoid legalistic terms like libellous - it is not good enough to label other editors as antisemitic (or as Holocaust Deniers in one case) and then try and laugh it off. Particularly not when the great majority of those cases are totally without foundation. There is a problem on these pages, but it's not antisemitism (that I've noticed, anyway) - it's racism. I've just drawn everyone's attention to it in as non-accusatory a fashion as possible, leaving it to the discretion of admins what to do with an editor who refers to "crack-head Arabs" (along with unpleasantness aimed at the French and dozens of ethno-specific snide comments).

Editors might be amused to check that well known reference, the Wikipedia, where they will find: "Jcom Radio was forced to cease broadcasting on Aug 12, 2008 when it lost a High Court libel case brought by George Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.[1] The case concerned a broadcast in Nov 2007, in which a character playing "Georgie Galloway", the station's "Middle East correspondent" cried out "Kill the Jews, Kill the Jews". Despite sacking the presenter, issuing an apology and offering Mr Galloway the opportunity to appear on the station, Mr Galloway was awarded £15,000 and c. £5,000 in costs. He said that the station's apology "fell short of the categorical retraction of the imputation of anti-Semitism that I insisted upon"." PR^talk 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could somone look at the recent contribs of User:Kikkid851? I fixed what I could but I'm not sure what the best way is to move Darlin' back to where it should be, and not to 254gihyut5. The talk page needs to be moved back, too. Thanks. MookieZ (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darlin' was a junk article too. It was simply a cut-and-paste move from Daft Punk. I will presently be deleting all of these junk articles as vandalism... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Think I fixed it all. The Darlin' article now redirects correctly, and the other article was deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left an exlpicit warning to the user to stop it, or they would be blocked. They are a sporadic user with a past history of good faith edits. If they make the same problematic edits again, they can and will be blocked. Lets see what they do. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. MookieZ (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

• Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
• Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.

• See these contribs lists: [51] and [52] and [53] and
• See these diffs: [54] and this edit summary and [55]

This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion?[56] I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB _talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example [57] What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This [58] is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there [59] if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, [60]. He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where all this starts. But [61], [62], [63] seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place [64] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite blocked 3 weeks for harrassing and attacking myself and other editors, is continuing to make abusive edits with an IP, saying he's proud to be blocked for harassing among other things. He has used 78.34.143.14 (talk · contribs) and 78.34.152.243 (talk · contribs). He goes into a particular rant here, accusing me of all kinds of funny stuff, calling myself and other users idiots. In his unblock request (done through on of he IPs) he attacks several users, and says I should be banned here. I've very minimally interacted with Everyme, and his attacks and harrassment continued despite a block need addressed. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected his talk page, to anonymous editors from masquerading as him. If he wants to edit it, he can log in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I think there are two sides to this coin. Could another admin offer a second opinion? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Everyme should log in to edit his talk page. Editing with his IP when under a block seems wrong - not in policy but just in practice. I'd recommed Grszll unwatch Everyme's talk page to be honest. I'm not sure that there are statements here that require punative block extensions; having been on the negative side of Everyme's backlashes I do empathise but it may be easier to just move on here. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched his talk. Just came across it now. I'm just irritated that I've rarely interacted with him and he acts like this. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I can drop it and wait to see what happens when he's back. Semi-protection is sufficient, but what about the other pages he has edited on those IPs? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAA, but User:Casliber seems to have been sympathetic to Everyme here; perhaps they might be able to offer an alternate point of view. the skomorokh 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned that ip's are deliberately impersonating Everyme to poison the well, then that would be grounds for a CheckUser. If the ip's are not Everyman then the ip's (or range, see below) should be blocked. If CU confirms that it is Everyme, then the block extends per WP:EVADE and the ip's are blocked as required - up to a rangeblock if the CU determines no/minimal collateral damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted this bit: "Anyhow, I don't really give a fuck about the block, because I will of course just ignore it when it comes to minor mainspace edits.". Seemingly admitting he'll evade his block. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To both LHVU and Grsz11 - the IP's have only edited Everymen's talk and therefore evading the block and the comment above are moot unless they do otherwise. As I say, Everyme should, IMHO, edit under his logged in account but blocking the IP's seems pointless (unless they are not Everyme of course) Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also used 78.34.129.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was blocked at the same time the username was. The others are in the same range, tracing to Cologne, where Everyme is from. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 22:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I would like CU confirmation first, many username accounts can log out and become an ip that edits another editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Such as I am doing now. 88.110.223.96 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Even if it seems obvious, a CU can remove any doubt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree a CU may add value. But the Everyme account was not blocked with talk page editing disabled. If the IP's return from CU as Everyme's, and they have only edited his talk, then he is not evading the terms of his block. I know this is the wrong way round to use semi protection, but here it would seem (on the face of it) to force Everyme to edit his talk whilst logged in, create no possible collateral damage, and remove any doubt on who is making comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That raises an interesting point, Everyme can admit to his evasion with his own name on his own talkpage - but chooses to do so as the ip... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One IP edits the talk page only, the other edits other userspace pages. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to cut this editor any slack. Long history of disruptive and tendentious editing, incivility, and misuse of tools. looie496 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, between his histrionics on election day (about how Obama's page MUST! BE! PROTECTED! NOW! or we would all be somehow complicit in WW 4), and the totally-out-of-pocket comments that got him blocked in the first place (that logged-out Penthouse-Forum-esque post on Grsz's talkpage, now deleted) I'm going to have to agree with Looie496 on this one. Everyme seems to be suffering from advanced WikiStress, and apparently could use a nice long break--and that goes for his flying IP-monkeys, too.GJC 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I thought the he made at least one valid point on the Obama page I agreed with, and I thought the logged out post as silly (he said a similar thing to me once) rather than jaw-droppingly offensive as such; I also agreed with the idea of a full-protection of the Obama page. The American election has aroused alot of emotions in alot of people, and I think a three week block in the aftermath of that was excessive. However, having partaken in the previous RfC, and been aware of numerous previous issues I can see why the action was taken. I am pretty busy today both on and off-wiki and need to read a whole pile of diffs if I can put forth any argument for leniency or finding a way forward. Keeper76 is the other editor whose input may be of value. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cas--Keeper is on an fairly-extended, though extremely sporadic, Wikibreak--basically he drops by about once in a blue moon, with no schedule as to when or for how long. I'll drop a note on the Keeperpedia, though, just in case he cruises past. (And I, too, agreed with the notion of full-protecting the candidate pages--but even I had to cringe at Everyme's over-the-top rhetoric. Claiming that any admin who didn't personally full-protect an Obama article was personally responsible for all racist vandalism...yeah, nuh-uh. That's TOO much.)GJC 13:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks for breaks (cool down blocks) are not a good idea. Being human would suggest that we should cut someone some slack when it's understandable (that they're worked up about something, they've just been blocked for three-freaking-weeks, etc). Grsz11, take his talk page off your watch list if this is bothering you. We don't need to look for problems that don't exist. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wasn't watching his damn talk page. Wouldn't I have brought it up when it happened if I were? Looking for a problem that doesn't exist? This editor is a problem. He's previously been blocked and discussed several times for his behavior towards other editors and has continuously shown his true value, or lack of, to the project. He's past the point where we can "cut someone slack". How many times do we have to put up with his bullshit before we say enough? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 06:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Questions)

Are we sure that the IP is Everyme? Is it not possible that it may be one or more of his foes possibly causing a disruption? Is there a precident to semi-protect a user page without that users permission? (This being done before a User Check was attempted I presume). Is it fair to preempitvly assume that this user will not learn and return to editing in good faith? Finally, does it really matter what this user says on his user page? Why does it bother anyone?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've often seen user pages semi-protected or fully protected for blocked users. When a user is blocked, the only valid use of his user page is either to request unblock or possibly to post civil, useful comments. I don't see any harm in semi-protecting it, and if the user then asks for it to be un-semi-protected, that request could be considered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your probably right. I just wondered why it is such a big deal. Wikipedia is not the whole world. Take a break all and relax.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing what looked to me like an edit war over a sock tag on a userpage I'd been watching, I page-protected User talk:Runteldat after a variant on the tag in question had been replaced by NeutralHomer. A few minutes later, I received this note on my talk page, which made me say "???":

Hello, is the protection of User:Runteldat user/talk pages in response to something, as I would like to have seen a response before blocking....just in the off chance it was an unrelated (to Rollo) editor.--NeutralHomer

I replied on NH's talkpage that it was in response to an editwar, and that IMHO, if the user had anything to say, he would have been better-served by speaking up instead of just silently removing the tag repeatedly. NH replied that he hadn't seen the editwar, so I guess that issue is resolved--but since a question was raised about the propriety of the page-protection: was it the right thing to do, or should I have waited a while first? Thanks... GJC 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the edit-war as it happened before I posted the tag or I would ahve reported it (sorry). - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 00:15

I reverted to JimWae. I think protection was the right call, and that NeutralHomer made an honest mistake. In short, I think the matter has been thoroughly resolved, I'd say tag this section resolved. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer just notified me that User:Runteldat is not in fact blocked -- and he's correct. So this is really a mess, the sockpuppet/block note is inappropriate (I'm not judging whether it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not appropriate at this time), and on top of that the image it purports to show the evidence for sockpuppetry is missing. Can anyone clarify this? --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rollosmokes (which User:Runteldat is supposed to be his sock) was one who uploaded that image and would revert to that image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:17

Ah, so the plot thickens -- now we seem to need to decide whether that is a sock indeed, before deciding anything else. I'll try to investigate the matter, time permitting -- if anyone has the time and disposition to do so please drop a line here so we don't duplicate the effort. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can apply for a checkuser on both accounts, if you like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:23

As far as I was able to tell until now, that's indeed a sock -- but I'm trying to determine whether there really is anyone without sin here, 'cause I see foul play on the other side as well. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a checkuser. I am not great with these, so if others would like to add more to the checkuser request, please go here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:30

I saw the edit you linked to and that one strikes me as odd to, so I added "Liradio" as a percaution. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:35

Here's what I was able to gather:

• The whole thing seems to have began with User:Liradio adding Image:Wpixcw11.png on Oct 6th (business as usual)
• Oct 13th, Liradio removes "orphaned" template from the image (template added by bot on Oct 12th)
• Oct 15th, Liradio adds new, "slightly edited" version of the logo;
• Nov 15th, bot tags it as fair use orphaned, and on the same day User:Mrschimpf re-adds it to the article.

In fact this has actually been going on since at least May 2007 (!), see Talk:WPIX#Current WPIX_Logo. Again, that's May 2007, not May 2008 -- quite impressive indeed! Both users (Rollosmokes and Liradio) seem to think they properly represent the radio station -- Rollosmokes insists on the formal side, Liradio insists on the "insider" angle. Neither of the two strictly follow rules or etiquette (Rollosmokes obviously employs socks, Liradio removes the other party's comments).

In short, either this is some sort of lame publicity stunt, or we have a couple of users hung up on a silly dispute (at least that's how I see it from the outside). I'll wait for the checkuser request to go through before deciding anything. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's Runteldat's first edit ever & here is one of Rollosmoke's early edits to the same article. Both edits are in error about Mineola being part of Town of Hempstead in that year. That links them in ways besides the TV stuff. R &R both wipe messages from their talk pages & Runteldat has evasively declined all requests to deny he is Rollosmokes. --JimWae (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hope it isn't Rollosmokes. I'd worked pretty well with him in the past before he got indefblocked for his silly "The CW/the CW" edit war. If it is, it's too bad--the guy did, at bottom, want to help improve Wikipedia rather than harm it. Blueboy96 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes, I go take a nap and the bottom drops out. Whose idea was it to slap a "blocked sock" tag on this guy's page without...you know, actually BLOCKING him, or for that matter proving he was a sock?? Generally when I see someone reverting a sock-block notice from their talkpage, I sorta make the goofy assumption that they're actually blocked. Jeez. Y'all deal with this one--I'm now officially out of my league. GJC 03:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollosmokes was already indefinitely blocked, see here. I also blocked User:Runteldat and User:Subwaykid indefinitely, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat. I gave User:Liradio a mild warning for his conduct -- he wasn't evil, but could've handled this better. I think GJC did the right thing for the wrong reasons when he protected that page, but that mistake was very easy to make; asking for a second opinion here was definitely the right way to go. This is resolved as far as I'm concerned. --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Subwaykid was a sleeper account--created a week after Rollosmokes was indefblocked for the second time, but no edits. Very, very disturbing--it looks like what was once a very good contributor has gone rogue. Blueboy96 14:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might account for Rollosmokes' quiet departure after his indef-block this time. He wanted to see how much he could get away with, and was already prepared to try a sock instead of protesting. Oops. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for a specific injunction on the said page, that any uninvolved administrator who sees the page may give out a warning and immediately apply a block upon more than 1 reversion. From what I can tell, this kind of thing is already done on occasion for certain hotly contested pages. Doubtless, this page has already been brought up on the messageboards, and as such, consensus on this may be difficult. But the edit warring is absolutely out of hand: [65]. The page was just recently protected again to prevent warring from someone who had simply jumped on the page, started pressing the revert button, and who has that kind of history elsewhere. This ought to be avoided by a simple warning. Quite simply put: certain parties are harming the page much more than helping it, and perhaps should not be able to throw around reversions. The page is of high interest, and should not be locked regularly.

As a side note, I regret having reverted the page even once, so I am no longer a neutral party. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as one who jumped in and reverted, i feel i must say something. when i read the talk page BEFORE i did anything else it was fairly clear that one person was going against the will of many others. there was also replacement of sourced info with unsourced by said person. these two problems seemed like they needed fixing.

as for your jumping in and reverting after requesting protection, i would say it was probably unnecessary. you could have just reverted and left it at that. if anyone continues to revert and revert and revert then i would say your suggestion to issue warnings would suffice. no need to block the page, just block those who cant take a hint.

for what its worth, i am out to help the page and if you read the talk page i think you will see that. Brendan19 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia just did it for 72 hrs. DGG (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read comment in full. Not a protection request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Even where compromises are "accepted" this page attracts some interesting new edits, and trying to keep it to a "normal" article is difficult indeed. Collect (talk) 01

01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Magog, and also regret having edited the page to where it is no longer appropriate for me to lock it. This article brought out the worst in some great editors; I hate to say Collect above is one of them. I really hope that interest in this dies down. Tan | 39 02:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should very shortly, given the end of the election. There has been a lot of edit-warring, BLP arguments, and overall incivility marring the article. Perhaps the majority of this article can be merged into McCain 08 when interest does die down, with a redirect in the article's place. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message boards? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, noticeboards, cough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The election is over, 11 days ago. Why would anyone still be messing around with that character's page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I suppose just because they can. Did you read some of the posts? <g>. Collect (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know enough about Joe the Plumber to know that (1) his knowledge of world affairs makes Sarah Palin look like an expert; and (2) the GOP completely mischaracterized the exchange between Joe and Obama, and that the public didn't buy it. He's history. In another year, they'll be putting his article up for AFD. Unless he gets that record deal. Or actually becomes a plumber. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or stands for elected office [ukexpat suppresses guffaws of laughter]. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He might be Palin's running mate in 2012. And don't laugh. They laughed about Ronald Reagan, too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. This post explains why, earlier today, I suddenly had an inexplicable sense of terror, as though a goose had walked over my grave...in combat boots. GJC 08:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several times over many months I have noticed this user removing references based on his own "fringe" interpretation of copyright law, for instance 18 June 2008, 5 August 2008, 15 November 2008. From the comments at User talk:Sfan00 IMG and his replies, it's pretty clear that he doesn't get it. I think we may need to "topic-ban" Sfan00 IMG from removing reference and external links. Can people please comment on whether this is desirable and feasible? Thank you. --NE2 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I would support that. Though it *may* be possible to block him already if he does anymore edits like the ones he has been doing... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Goodness, this board being useful? How could that be possible?) Strongly support topic ban or perhaps even a regular ban. Copyright paranoia in its worst, in what looks like an extreme misunderstanding of either the law or the word "derivative." The edits are borderline (if not past the line) disruptive and need to stop immediately. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK So since when is removing in good faith links that were potentialy questionable a WP:ANI matter?

In many cases they were reviewed rather quickly when there were objections. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the B word is constructive here, Rschen. Just letting any closing admins know, Sfan00 IMG is a legit sock of User:ShakespeareFan00. — neuro^(talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that it is, because (if you look at the repeated conversations on his or her talk) I don't believe that the user understands the gravity of their edits. One can also understand this from "Well they [the controversial edits] were reverted quickly"... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise : I'd like to request admin support/mentoring , as there are apparently some conflicts of understanding.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor note, it'd be nice if we could avoid requesting "backup" from IRC. It's bad form to canvass for support. To nobody in particular. :) Kylu (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this before I logged onto IRC, and told him when he came online that I hope he will stop doing what is annoying everyone for the moment. Also, there are some real issues here, so he needs to work towards understanding what people are annoyed about.

On the flip side of this coin, if I may be devils advocate for a minute, is that some of these links that SF has been removing are "to be avoided" as they would not be necessary if the article was featured. e.g. if we had free maps, or free djvu files of the PD books, then we wouldnt need to use Google Maps and Google Books (besides, deep links into a Google Book are a bad idea, as they often dont work outside USA). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he constatntly removes or tags things en mass, and apparently often doesn't give enough info as to WHY he feels this way. Just look through all the talk page archives and it's pretty obvious that very often more harm than good is done. It's a case of, as it were, throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- sure many edits are fine, but way too many are NOT, and saying "well they were reverted quickly" is really REALLY not the proper attitude one should have here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, s/he tags images that already have valid use rationale; just look at the history of this image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Daemon.JPG For a recent example; I had to undo his tagging (which, of course, sfsan tried to fast-track the image for deletion) and then specify the PD-art tag to make the WP policy even more specific; sfsan hasn't just ignorantly been doing this either, he's been repeatedly told of his mistakes, politely informed of mistakes, finally rebuffed for continuing in the behavior. He does it for images, links...just check his contribs; how much damage has he done already, I wonder! I motion for suspension or ban, simply because he's been corrected repeatedly and he has only fought those who've tried helping.

tooMuchData

07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

That's unkind, That particular one didn't have a description, so I wasn't sure, which was why DFU was used. You could have helped by clarifying the issue at hand. Generally, where there has been a well founded concern, the issue has been resolved politely.

If you look over back contributions and my talk page, I have often reinstated, converted links where there's been a genuine mistake. We are not all perfect. We all have off days.

I am dissapointed at the attitude here, Generally, I am only trying (un-successfully it seems) to follow what WP:EL and other policy says, If trying to in good faith ensure certain policy is met, is now grounds for topic bans and blocks, then the nature of Wikipedia has changed for the worse IMO.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image mentioned above - Now Commons BTW :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Maybe we could consider a compromise, How about I don't remove links for a period of say 6 months? Whilst some experienced admins assist me in reviewing the disputed edits.

I'd already been undertaking a review of edits on both accounts in respect of Image taggings BTW :)

So my questions are thus :

• Stop link removals for a period not less than 6 months? Yes/No (see below)

• Continue image review/rationales? Yes/No
• Use Open Street map/Open Areial Map to provide additional cites in respect of the disputed links? Yes/No
• Merge account histories? Yes/No (This would need admin support.)?
• Continue commons moves (once the audit trail issue raised by a contriubtor on my talk page) is resolved ? Yes/No
• Continue removal of YouTube links if unclear status? Yes/No

I'd also like to recomend the following (which would need admin/dev support)

• Edit capping for Twinkle and automated tools(The sheer number of msg's it can produce when it's in use is more than a

normal user can cope with. I seem to recall this being mentioned in respect of other users previously.)

• Provide a filter for Special:Linksearch
• Allow user opt-out from Twinkle notifcations.
• Dedicated named admins responsible for handling 'copyright' deletions.
• An attempt being made by admins/WMF to clarify with respect to Google Maps/Books etc,

what exactly their terms do and do not allow, and the enforcability thereof. 

• An overhaul of WP:EL and related policy, so that it's clearer.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 November 2008

I have spoken further with SF about this, and he has agreed not to attempt to "enforce" copyright policy for up to six months, while a review of past editing is undertaken. I will be assisting as both a reviewer, and mentor, with the intention of learning more what he has been trying to achieve, providing feedback on which objectives are in line with communal expectations, and recommending how he should proceed in a way that doesnt become adversarial and controversial. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --NE2 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues which sparked this were and my current views are as follows -

Citing scans vs originals - Ideally cite the original but URL the online scan as well :)

Google Books - Since the issues in August, Google reached a deal with publishers, thus linking to Google Books should

now perfectly acceptable from a copyrights perspective. Whether WMF should actively encourage traffic to a commerical provider is a different issue entirly

External Links should not be removed unless proven to be unclear status or blindlingy obvioud copyvio,

The Google Maps linkage that was removed was thus disruptive by that assesment (I hope it's been roll-backed in full) if not let's have a list for others to review :) ,

The acceptability of Google/Wikimapia data as references for coordinates remains to be determined, thus premature to continue further removals.

You tube link removals - The basis on which these were being undertaken no longer , A recent ruling said that fair-use did apply to You Tube content, and it would be impossible for a normal user to know exactly what is and isn't fair use these days. Ideally I would favour a Links for review page, where individual clips could be examined by those with more experience in such matters.

Image tagging, - nsd/npd etc.. should be last resort options, and the notifcation times are too short, I would personally favour

a PUI type system for unsourced/unlicensed etc, and removing 'hard' tags to admin use only, I will note that it's not just me that overuses them :(

Massacre tagging - Someone needs to write a policy explaining why this is a BAD idea.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the surrounding issue, but I just wanted to point out that "massacre tagging" is a hell of a good name for this sort of thing. You're halfway to that essay just by coming up with a good name for the subject. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColourWolf has, since last year, created over 50 sock accounts to spread lies and vandalism here on Wikipedia, and he has vowed to vandalize on even a grander scale. Something needs to be done to deal with this, such as talking to the ISPs from the country which this guy comes from (Singapore, which shouldn't be a problem, as there are only 2-3 ISPs there), or even consider something more drastic, such as *ahem* law enforcement. (I know that falls afoul of WP:LEGAL, but I am simply throwing this out here). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know anything about the situation, but presuming that what you said is true, the right avenue is WP:ABUSE. Make a age there detailing which accounts and IP's are connected and which pages have been vandalized and someone will email/call the ISP's abuse report department about it. "legal" action is highly unlikely (and I have no idea about law in Singapore on anything) and rangeblocking a large swath would probably result in some large collateral damage. So that leaves us with abuse reports. Again, I make no comment on the underlying dispute/problem. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This law enforcement idea is interesting. Are you suggesting this user be caned a la Michael Fay? Is pranking and vandalising a crime in any country? If not, the OP brings up a solution that might be useful -- to criminalize vandalism and subject banned users not to just revocation of their editing privileges, but to jail or prison time. I might be wrong but that's how i'm reading the thread. SEB Chapman (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reading it as "I want this vandalism to stop". I think we should not think about "law enforcement" for almost anything on WP short of realistic and direct threats of violence. We (editors) already have a distorted perspective vis the importance of vandalism/disruption--I strongly suspect that any police department worth its salt would laugh us out the door for a request to track down a vandal on WP. They have better things to do and there are easier ways of solving 99.9% of these problems. We have enough trouble getting ISPs to listen to abuse reports, lets start there. Protonk (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't me that suggested it. I was just pondering the idea proposed above by the "Arbiter" fellow. I just didn't know if this was the norm or what, eh. SEB Chapman (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to castigate you, sorry. Just pointing out the limits of response. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make a serious complaint about the behaviour of User:Mitsube in relation to my contributions to Wikipedia. Ever since I signed up a few months ago, User:Mitsube has been pursuing me around Wikipedia and causing constant irritation. First, he leapt on my article, Purity in Buddhism, and then pretended that he knew what my real-life identity was, wrongheadedly and maliciously proclaiming the name of 'Tony Page' to the Wikipedia-reading world in a way that suggests I am this Tony Page. He deleted some material that I added to the article on Dolpopa and claimed that I was Tony Page. Here are his words, when he summarised his removal of my contributions: "@(cur) (last) 19:25, 16 October 2008 Mitsube (Talk | contribs) (5,959 bytes) (Removing. A) Undue weight. B)Hookham not a scholarly source. C)We have Tony Page advocating his own website and ideas again.) (undo)". The URL for this is: [[66]]. He/she subsequently deleted, tagged or constantly quibbled with accurate, sourced and fairly summarised material that I had added (he/she likes to claim that I am putting forward my 'personal interpretration', whenever something is stated that he/she does not like). Another user, 'Anam Gumnam', noted this behaviour and said that Mitsube is clearly engaged in some kind of vendetta against me. I agree. Why User:Mitsube should do this, I do not know, as I have no knowledge of who Mitsube is and I have never deleted or interfered with his/her contributions. But nearly everything I write is 'policed' by User:Mitsube and no good faith is assumed on his/her part. Just a couple of days ago, after not contributing to Wiki for some weeks, I added a section to the Introduction of the Dzogchen article (I intended to add a supporting paragraph the next day to the body of the text, which I did). This is an article that User:Mitsube had taken no active interest in for nearly 4 months. But within a matter of hours, User-Mitsube had popped up and moved the material (at first I thought he had deleted it, as is his wont), and was nit-picking over a sentence of mine, which does in fact accurately reflect the ideas contained in the book from which I quoted. Now he seems to have deleted a section entitled 'Boundless Wholeness' which I added to the "Dzogchen' article. Almost always and all the time, if I make a major contribution to Buddhism-related articles on Wikipedia, User:Mitsube will find some fault or other, or tend even to delete material without discussing it first with the writer or with other editors. He/she is clearly following me around Wikipedia and harassing me. So, I accuse User:Mitsube of:

1) Attempted Outing

2) Wikihounding

I hope very much that the Administrators will severely reprimand User:Mitube and limit the extent to which he or she is allowed to edit. Sincerely - Suddha (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting it twice does not make it twice as likely to be dealt with, nor will it endear you to anyone here. There's a note above, to the effect of "This is not the WP complaints department." Unless you can show concrete evidence in the form of diffs showing where this user has wrongly reverted you--I don't even see the slightest support above for the "outing" accusation--then both versions of this posting will likely be ignored. Just some friendly advice...GJC 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you have any evidence to back up your accusations? Mitsube has about 45 edits, most are to his own user page, and I can't see anything that even remotely pertains to you. Tan | 39 04:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have looked up the wrong user, Tan. Mitsube has ~1,500 edits, some are to articles Sudda mentions. 86.44.27.45 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're right! Nevertheless, some evidence from Sudda would be helpful. Tan | 39 04:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the complaint twice because someone added a comment after my first posting of it, implying that it was in the wrong place - that this line was to do with vehicle registration (or the like). So I posted it again, hoping it would then be in the right place. I am new to all these Wiki rules. I will supply instances where User:Mitsube has unfairly reverted me or deleted my work. But just look at how he pops up everywhere (nearly) where I write, and criticises my contribution. No other editor has done this. Only this User:Mitsube. It should be obvious to anyone who cares to look that User:Mitsube is pursuing me around Wikipedia and is just trying to make trouble. As I said, I will try to post examples of this. Suddha (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suddha, the responses to your initial post were a very lame in-joke among Wikiepdia administrators. They should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to make fun of your post. What they were probably trying to say is that you provided a complaint that was lacking in diff's, which admins need to investigate the problem (since you can't expect them to research a cloud of smoke, right?). Also, your complaint is lacking in substance as to any specific policies the other user has breached - the only basis you've given is that you feel you've been wronged, but you've given no evidence, nor any basis on which to proceed. The regulars here have seen this happen many times before and have an unfortunate tendency to make sport of naive posters here, rather than trying to address their concerns.

Admins (specifically the two responding in the previous thread): nice one! You sure made that naive editor feel welcome. Special kudos for your graceful explanation as to why their complaint would not be addressed. Ever been new? Franamax (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof of User:Mitsube's attempt at outing my identity: he or she deletes material that I had added to the Dolpopa article and claims in his/her summary of his/her editing that I am 'Tony Page': "(cur) (last) 19:25, 16 October 2008 Mitsube (Talk | contribs) (5,959 bytes) (Removing. A) Undue weight. B)Hookham not a scholarly source. C)We have Tony Page advocating his own website and ideas again.) (undo) ". This wrongful attempt at outing an editor should be censured. Suddha (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have Dzogchen on my watchlist. I have edited it in the past. Instead of this nonsense please give the source for the sentence I asked you about (and did not delete) on the talk page. Mitsube (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at some of the stuff and, while Mitsube's tone isn't always the most patient or civil, I don't see any evidence of harrassment. Much of it too seems to have happened some time ago. How about assuming good faith on both sides? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Mitsube's blatant attempt at 'identity'outing'? Here is the diff: [[67]]. After deleting some of my work, Mitsube then clearly claimed that I was 'Tony Page'. Suddha (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's exactly what is meant by identity outing. I am not familiar with the situation, but if you have a conflict of interest and another user points that out, that's not identity outing. Are you Tony Page? L'Aquatique[talk] 07:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation - the end justifies the means then? Mathsci might have a different outlook on that. Shouldn't COI issues be handled a little differently than naming the editor in question in an article edit? For my own information, if we suspect an editor has a unique real-world COI identity - where is the right place to go? Franamax (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'd be reluctant to characterize that as outing though it is unacceptable on other grounds. That edit was made a month ago so it's a bit late for a preventative block. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how WP:COI works. In the edit summary Mitsube directly says who he thinks the user is, contrary to WP:OUTING. That's not a thing to do, and should not be repeated. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, though in this instance my take was that User:Mitsube was being obnoxious rather than making a genuine effort at outing. Your mileage may vary. What to do? A stern warning? Or a reminder about civility, outing and so forth? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a long series of content disputes concerning Tibetan Buddhism. Unfortunately all of the articles involved are so obscure that it is unlikely any uninvolved party will be able to make enough sense of them even to mediate. On the whole, my impression is that Suddha's contributions usually tend to obscure things even more, whereas Mitsube's tend to clarify them slightly, but the difference is not overwhelming. In short, what is needed here is a mediator with a substantial knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism, and without such a thing, I would not recommend that anybody take action except in a case of really blatant violations. looie496 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the person quoting material self-published by the non-scholar Tony Page is the same person who has done so in the past, Tony Page. If I was wrong, I apologize. Mitsube (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again...I'm getting to be a fly in the buttermilk around here, I'm sure, but I want to make sure I'm not screwing up. Last night, I blocked User:CREEVESUX for vandalism to the Christopher Reeve article combined with a thoroughly deceitful edit summary and a username which was clearly an attack. (In fact, that was how I found him--UAA--and when I checked his contribs I could tell he didn't have the good of WP at heart.) Today, I received a note from CIreland, alerting me to the fact that the "friend" our little vandal had mentioned in his unblock request was requesting unblock as collateral damage. Here is the unblock request for Akyoyo94. As I told him, two things speak against the unblock: one, repeating the misinformation apparently provided by his "friend", about how the vandal himself undid the bad edit immediately; and two, the sad truth that "my friend was the vandal" is essentially "the dog ate my homework" reworked for the digital age. However, as I also told the user, I'm willing to abide by admin consensus on this one; I've got no dog in the fight, and I'm enough on the fence to be okay with either outcome. (Plus, you guys have been admins a lot longer than I have, and can generally tell when someone's blowing sunshine.) Thanks.... GJC 04:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's often my friend, my brother/sister, my roomie did it. I see nothing wrong with the block. Given the misinformation in the unblock request I am not inclined toward an unblock. -- Ѕandahl ♥ 04:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'd undo the rangeblock for the reasons I've stated at Akyoyo94. In general, I usually don't block username violation blocks from creating new accounts. I understand blocking the name forever but don't stop someone from registering a new name because of a single small instance of vandalism. Oren0 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a rangeblock, he is autoblocked due to User:CREEVESUX's block for username and vandalism.— Ѕandahl ♥ 04:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the autoblock. I'm such a marshmallow. :) GJC 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you had strong reason to expect that the abuse would be repeated, maintaining the autoblock would only have been punitive. looie496 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bring this here but there is some rather unpleasant edit-warring on Murder of Gwen Araujo (formerly Gwen Araujo). Some editors feel that these people are only known for being brutally murdered. I tend to disagree but if consensus is that the most notable thing they've ever done is to be murdered then Wikipedia should be quite proud to get it right. In any case the effort seems to be to move LGBT hate-crime victims from being an biography to focusiing solely on their murder. In the cases of Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan these were both quickly followed by "gee these people aren't notable at all"-ish discussions. These are rather silly as even a quick source search would show otherwise. the latest effort seems to be this. i have to take a break but would appreciate others looking into it. Cheers. -- Banjeboi 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There does appear to be some edit-warring on those articles.[68][69] By the looks of things, the only particularly notable thing that happened to any of these people were their murders, so that's what the article's should primarily focus on. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving these articles to Murder of... is the correct way of dealing with them. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to look at this on a case by case basis. I don't think the wisest course is to move these while discussion is ongoing. AniMate 18:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's really going on here? Matthew Shepard, of all symbolic figures, was moved to Murder of Matthew Shepard, clearly against consensus, and quite frankly, common sense. There's now an RFC on the talk page. Is this an effort to move people who have been murdered from LGBT bias to articles about their murders? I don't get the point, although per the opening dialog on Shepard's talk page regarding the move, "other lgbt and other pseudo-notable deaths", it's starting to become clearer. By the way, the user who left that note, Lihaas (talk · contribs), recently inserted information into the Lesbian article that defined the term as someone who comes from the Greek island of Lesbos, above the definition you and I and everyone else who speaks English uses the term for. Just so readers were clear on which is more important in this language. --Moni3 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few other slightly concerning edits regarding LGBT subjects in that user's edit history as well (though it's certainly not his main focus of editing). Worth keeping an eye on, certainly. Black Kite 11:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185), whose referenced edits on the article Goguryeo language did not correspond to the original source.

Detected false citations can be divided into two types.

1. By altering deliberately the original source in favor of her/his purpose, her/his referenced edits are different from the contents of the original source. [70], [71](upper and middle one), [72] [73](the lowerst one)
2. By adding reference, this user intended to support his faulty information, which is in fact not existent in the original source material at all. [74](lower one)

Basically, this user’s strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits by her/himself, so that the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have to keep constantly an eye on the user correcting her/his wrong edits.

Despite my three times warning, allowing plenty time (ca. 6 weeks) of self-correction, this user made no sincere reaction but just tried to cloud the main issue. S/he could not even realize the seriousness of her/his wrongdoing.

Considering her/his attempt to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [75], [76], [77], [78], this user should be blocked indefinitely from working on this article Goguryeo language in order to prevent her/his further possible distortions of the original source materials for the wrong purpose. Above all, her/his abuse of citations not only degrades the authority of Wikipedia, but also affects badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Wikipedia. However hard one may work to correct intentionally wrong referenced edits by trying to verify the correctness of citations, such cases will happen again and again, if there is no ban for abusing citations.

As a preliminary measure, the article Goguryeo language should be semi-protected in order for this anonymous user not to make further significantly disruptive edits with irresponsible attitude.

False citations made by this user are listed here - User:Jagello/cites.

Jagello (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before. For some reason, Jagello absolutely refuses to make any attempt to discuss this on either the talk page of the article or the talk page of the opposite party (who has a static IP), and has only communicated using belligerent edit summaries and a "final warning" template. Until that happens, I suggest that this complaint be ignored. (Note that the complaint of misrepresentation of sources is impossible to verify for anybody who doesn't know the Goguryeo language, a Korean language that has not been used for 1300 years.) looie496 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken up this issue again, because all my previous comments on this matter are already archived. First of all, I have made it clear from the beginning that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation but the matter of false referenced edits. So it is not even necessary to know a single word of the Goguryeo language. Maybe some knowledge of Japanese is needed to understand the paper written by Itabash Yoshizo: 板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages through the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language." False citations made by this user are listed here - User:Jagello/cites.

Jagello (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Resolved}}

98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted abuse to the subject of Talk:Michael Rosenblum after replacing a warning on that IP's talk page, for earlier abuse, with "Fuck off"; and doing the same to the talk page of another IP (75.91.74.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which has also abused Rosenblum; as have other IPs from the same ISP (Windstream Communications Inc): 98.17.164.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); 75.91.74.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also one from the US military: 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using identical terms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca has sprotected the article, and I blocked the most recent ip for 31 hours. Hopefully this is an end to it (for a while, at least).LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: [79], [80]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a high traffic talkpage, so if there is a spate of ip vandalism then a request for a short semi protection could be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jchristineny (talk · contribs) has created pages which are blatant copyvio beyond the 4th warning. McWomble (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only contribs by this editor are also blatant copyvios. (Speedy) delete, block, ignore. Blueboy96 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grossmont Union High School District article had so many potential problems, I didn't know where else to post an alert on it. Edits made after the election [[81]][[82]][[83]][[84]][[85]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I revertd, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. I mulled it over for a few days and decided to ask about it on this page, rather than to four separate notice boards. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. Please feel free to leave comments on the article talk page, since I don't think the other editor knows about this notice board. Thank you in advance.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry.

Omgmickjaggerisdead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s name is a violation of WP:USERNAME and a possible WP:BLP violation. On top of that he appears to be a WP:SPA and a vandal. Dr.K. (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW does anyone know why the table of the preceding section renders after this section? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the formatting was pushing the table to the end of the page - I've moved it to a user subpage. Black Kite 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Black Kite. I never saw a floating table before. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because it was in a "reference" section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 76.66.8.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote the following in the body of Saint James School of Medicine "Please do not report information, the validity of which you cannot attest to - as it is deceiving and a form of electronic fraud."[86] I believe this violates WP:NLT and needs a block. Bstone (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, can't we get all our vandals arrested?

I think we should just revert, warn and ignore. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RBI would be ok but for the IP repeatedly inserting this into the body of the article. I think 4 times now. Bstone (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was found on David Shankbone's weblog:

The first was Bedford Crenshaw, User:Bedford (photo, right), who on his Wikipedia User page proclaims the United States the "second greatest country ever." What's the greatest country ever? The pro-slavery Confederate States of America.

Since Bedford was desyoped for something similar, I believe that sanctions are in order for this over the top personal attack. Dodad Pro (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All this weblog is doing is stating exactly what is currently on User:Bedford's user page. Unless I am missing something, I see no offsite attack - and I'm not sure it would be relevant to Wikipedia even if there were. Tan | 39 17:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davy said more than that about me, and he complained about other users as well. Davy's blog is also higher profile than my Myspace. Looks like if you know the right people, you can get special privileges.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the man's blog. He can say whatever he wants, as far as I can tell. Unless it is a threat, then he did nothing wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I read it and don't see the problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a list, somewhere, of greatest countries ever? Sounds like the sort of thing we really should have. --Pete (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford was not desysopped for something similar. He was desysopped for his on-wiki behavior and epithets directed at other editors. This was done by Jimbo. But thanks for the links to Shankbone's blog, always a good read. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford was sanctioned for an “off-Wiki” remark in which he used the term ”Feminazi”. Shankbone used his weblog to not so subtly call Bedford a racist.

But I would agree with the, it seems that there are different standards for different editors here. Dodad Pro (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So who's sockpuppet are you? _{assuming good faith doesn't need we have to become brain dead} --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember giving up the right to free speech when I signed up. If his actions at Wikipedia are not in question, then there is no issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Is the information untrue? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan appears to be saying that the blog is simply recreating the same information that is found on User:Bedford page. Right now, the blog is borking links, so I can't verify, but I take Tan's word for it. Since it happened outside of Wikipedia, does it matter? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blog's categories appear to be borken, but the relevant text is on the frontpage; Tan is correct. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No issue here. David was only repeating a statement Bedford himself made on his userpage. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodad, as Jimbo clearly states here the desysopping was for both on and off-wiki conduct, either of which was egregious enough to warrant pulling the bit. And here is the diff in which Bedford calls female Wikipedia editors "feminazis" in an edit summary on-wiki, not off. Please stop lying on this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, no, it doesn't make a difference, since it's off-Wiki and has no bearing on what happens here. But if the information is true, then Bedford or his supporters don't have a leg to stand on in complaining. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying a millipede doesn't have a leg to stand on. But then, I no longer expect better.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I suspect you are over-estimating the plurality of your alleged supporters, I can only advise you to take this million millipede march of yours somewhere else. — CharlotteWebb 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved. No personal attack on-wiki, and nothing revealed in the blog that hasn't been revealed on Bedford's userpage. This is an off-Wikipedia blog, and there is nothing that can be construed as offensive, especially in light of what you've penned on your user pages Bedford. As for Bedford's desysop, it was for comments he made on-wiki, in the calling of other editors "femi-nazi"'s, and was subsequently desysoped by Jimbo. seicer | talk | contribs 01:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing offensive on my either; I guess I didn't bother making the right friends.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been "gangraping" you the whole time? seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps its the threats to pay a visit to anyone who "slanders" you. I dunno, it seems like there are far more reasons than the "feminazi" stuff why people don't particularly want to interact with you, littlelone give you tools. Now you have carried this feud over to Talk:Public image and reception of Sarah Palin. "just the uploader craving attention, so he posed for the pic, and then uploaded it for the world to see." When I told him it's not me in the photo, he basically says I'm lying. Frankly, I stand by my original request for a block back from his edit-warring on Rush Limbaugh over sourced, factual information. Now he's edit-warring over at Public image and reception of Sarah Palin and over a photo he swears is me. Oh well. --David Shankbone 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, consensus was with me that the stuff you wanted to add to Rush Limbaugh was not factual, and smacked of recentism. I copared the two photos, side by side, and its the came guy. Do other wish to vote Confirmed, Plausible, or Busted?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Bedford, my Hazel-green eyes I've had all my life have suddenly gone dark, piercing blue. And my bushy eyebrows and slanty eyes when I smile have all been taken care or for an upcoming appearance on Nip/Tuck. Or, more likely, it's time to update your lenses, or maybe try out a new pair to see if they can bring out your cheekbones a bit more. --David Shankbone 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The (same?) cosmetic surgeon performed a dimplectomy on DS's chin in time for the placard-waving shot. The two men pictured are manifestly different individuals; and for Bedford Crenshaw to keep insisting that they are one and the same is simply to keep calling DS a liar -- an egregious personal attack, repeated several times now. The man adamantly refuses to present civil, relevant arguments at Talk:Public image and reception of Sarah Palin and his overriding interest there appears to be to pursue his personal vendetta regardless. This really needs to be dealt with properly. It's getting way too much like that blond geezer in Desperate Housewives. Next thing you know, David Shankbone will go missing and Wikipedia will suddenly burn down. — Writegeist (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort? An IP-jumping anon who has a personal issue with the current management has been trolling the page for some time now. The article itself has been semi-protected because of his actions.

The anon has been warned repeatedly that the talk page is for discussions about improving the article, it's not a general purpose discussion board for talking about the resort. This mornings post of his I finally reverted, citing the notice at the top of the page that states "This is not a forum for general discussion of Whitefish Mountain Resort. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article."

Can an admin look into this? Was my actions appropriate given the ongoing trolling by the IP? If not, please let me know and either revert my removal of his/her comments, or mention it here and I will revert that removal myself. Given that it appears to be a dynamic IP that changes periodically, what other actions can be taken? The trolling is only once or twice a week, so I don't think it's sufficient to warrant semi-protecting the talk page ... but at the same time, allowing his posts and responding to them simply encourage more of the same. Advice and/or pointers from dealing with similar issues on other articles would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounded familiar. I dealt with this same editor on the same page a year ago; this guy has a serious axe to grind, and isn't going to go away. Don't have time to do anything about it myself, but recommend:

1. Using Special Contributions with a suitable range (it might take some research to find the applicable range), see if the only contributions coming from that range are from this user. If so, ask an admin that understands rangeblocking to block the range for 6 months or a year or something.
2. The same thing, but ask at WP:RFCU for a checkuser to figure out the appropriate range. Not sure if they'll take it or not, but if so, I think they can figure out appropriate ISP ranges easier than mere mortals.
3. If rangeblocks don't work, revert on sight. Since article is protected, I think we can't protect the talk page. I have no problem with anyone just reverting that IP's posts to the talk page. I'll re-watchlist it, but won't be around much to help.

--barneca (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see if a rangeblock is feasible. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a rangeblock would work and would not cause too much damage. How long do you think I should block him for? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go somewhere for a couple hours. If anyone is interested, he's operating from 72.160.0.0/17 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this dispute for a while. If it's acceptable to block 72.160.0.0/17 for a month or two (anon only), I'd vote for that. Otherwise just keep reverting the individual Talk comments as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a month should be adequate - if the disruption resumes after that, it could be re-evaluated and extended at that point if needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't want to encourage copy-cats
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved Reported to the FBI. Bstone (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Can someone look into this version [87] of the article Bullhead sharks. I don't know if we have to consider this as a joke or a possible threat. If this is a threat, this should be taken in serious manner. I've given a 1 month block as a precautionary measure. But other measures, even warning the Secret Service, should be considered. As I live in Europe, I leave it to you Americans to solve this. JoJan (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think the oficial qiikipedia policy is to revert, block, ignore threats like this an dreport them to the WP: councillor, who is attorney Mike Godwin. Smith Jones (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] You say you've blocked him, well the IP's block log doesn't show this. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] While I do not believe this is a legitimate threat, I don't think we should take things like this lightly. I would have to somewhat disagree with the 2nd comment, as we can't just brush things like this aside. I would suggest checking into this. (I'm not an admin, just my advice here) Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the Secret Service need to be called. Grsz11 →Review! 19:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] My expectation is that an official representative of WP should be the one to do that; "Hi, I'm Josephina Blo, a WP editor, and there's a threat to kill Obama on one of our shark pages" mightn't meet with the most-desirable response. Has anyone reported this to Godwin & Co yet?GJC 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Regarding any "official" WP stance, Jimbo has chimed in at WT:TOV and said he believes all threats should be reported as we should certainly err on the side of caution. I have emailed and posted on the talk of Mike Godwin and he has never responded. WP:TOV, an essay, indicates from multiple law enforcement and public safety officers that all credible threats should be reported. Bstone (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] This can be reported to the FBI here. Bstone (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I filled out the online FBI tip form. I have done this before and they act VERY swiftly. I might even expect a call from them soonish. Bstone (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] This does not upscale. We probably get several hundred pieced of ridiculous vandalism like this every week - and threads like this will increase that number. Most people probably just revert them and move on, so 90% is quietly ignored. If you really feel moved to contact the FBI, that's your call. But please, please, can we avoid threads like this, as they will just encourage trolls to do more.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, quite. Revert, Block, Ignore means what it says - it isn't "Revert, Block, Make an enormous fuss about childish vandalism". As Scott says, it just encourages them. Black Kite 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] On the contrary, having them actually get visits from law enforcement will do a nice job of preventing further trolling. And the potential for damage to the project if even a single such threat turns out to be serious is massive. We shouldn't have these threads; people should just go and report such things as soon as they see them. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think this example was just a drive by insult/threat. It wasn't actionable or in any other context. All we are doing is feeding the trolls here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] You need to consider credibility, though. Even WP:TOV says "It's a good idea to report credible threats." Random IPs saying, in a completely random article, that Obama is going to die in five weeks time? Nah. Black Kite 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am entertained that folks who constantly demand we avoid threads like this always post in such threads with their repeated demands. Which spawns further conversation, debate, etc. Bstone (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Credibility? Bullshit. Any threat of violence against a President especially Obama should be treated seriously and acted upon accordingly. Grsz11 →Review! 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] *shrug* that's your opinion. If you want to tip off the FBI every time a bored teenager in Shitkicker, Tennessee wants to vandalise the encyclopedia, that's your call. More importantly we shouldn't have an ANI thread about it every time, unless there are more complex issues involved. Black Kite 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] C'mon, the decision whether to ignore it or not shouldn't be ours; that decision should be left to the ones who know what they are doing. They are the ones who should determine it's credibility, who the hell are we to make that call. Grsz11 →Review! 23:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SIMONSMITH and User:Simonsmith are editing the same articles and are probably the same person. However, I hesitate to call this a case of sockpuppetry, because I don't think there's an intention to mislead.

What's the best way to handle this -- drop a note on both talk pages asking if they are one and the same to just use one account? WP:SOCK wasn't clear on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edits are few and far between, I don't think it's much of a big deal. May want to ask him to stick with one though, and tell him he can redirect one user and talk page to the other. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You could ask them to opt for one or the other, but otherwise it's usual to point them at {{Doppelganger}} to avoid confusion. --Rodhullandemu 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now creating a sockpuppet to argue on here brings up another issue: Stopitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we maybe have a checkuser run to determine if Stoprightnow is a sock of Simonsmith or just a general troll? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it was anything other than a troll.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for having to comment and run last night. I'll drop the user a friendly note. I don't think pointing them to {{Doppelganger}} will be helpful. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the theory that no admin would ever behave like this, this, and this, I am assuming that this account has been compromised. Or, if not, then clearly Scarian needs a major vacation from being an admin. This is not how it is done. I've done a desysop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Update: Scarian apologized without hestitation and supported that the desysop was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Therefore, I have reinstated him immediately and without prejudice. I remind all sysops that certain standards of behavior are expected of all of us as Wikipedians, and that this applies doubly to admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] The tone of the last comment and how it seems to be aimed at an editor who has had a lengthy dispute with Scarian makes me doubt this is a compromised account. If anything, however, that makes the desysop more justified. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, it was just a dispute. No arguments about desysopping here. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] As far as I can tell the user making the complaint has all but admitted to evading a ban under a previous username. As such I think this is at least a slight overreaction. — CharlotteWebb 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't see that admission. The account started in 2007 and has the markings of a typical newcomer. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry it came to that. Why don't you chill out for a while, and then email some sort of explanation to Jimbo. In the future, if you notice that you are becoming overwrought, my talk page is a good place to seek relief. I've got a large stockpile of JzG's patented Troll-B-Gone®. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, J. I won't be petty and make excuses for my flaming episode; I realise I could have, and should have, acted better. I think I'll turn down the tea and head away from the Wiki for a fair bit. This whole experience has soured the enthusiasm I once had for the Wiki. Thanks anyways though! ScarianCall me Pat! 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] IMHO, a permanent desysopping here is unnecessary, since Pat has admitted that he was wrong and apologized for his actions. A few days ago, I made two rather uncivil comments on Talk:Barack Obama. While perhaps they were not as bad as the ones that Pat made, they were still inappropriate coming from anyone, but especially from an administrator. Based on the edit summaries I left, it is extremely obvious I was in full possession of my mental facilities (well, to a point - let's just say I knew full well what I was doing). However, all that resulted from thwas a note (now auto-archived) on my talk page. Honestly, I believe that Pat was frustrated and/or stressed IRL and got pushed past his breaking point onwiki. Considering that he does not deny that his actions were inappropriate, and has (I feel) made legitimate apologies where due, I would support his re-sysopping with a caution to exercise prudence in the future. (I e/c'ed with like 5 people while trying to post this, and in light of intervening posts...)If Pat is going to be taking a volutary wikibreak, I definitely think that is a good thing, but I see no reason why, when he comes back, he should not be allowed to return his full set of tools. J.delanoygabsadds 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I agree. Scarian's wikistress level is clearly very high right now. He's a good admin who had a lapse in judgment. If he does take a wikibreak, I think he should be allowed to request his tools back like he did the last time he took a wikibreak. Enigma message 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] We all have our moments. (As you can guess, I'm feeling guilty right now, though not guilty enough to remove it. If anyone else wants to, be my guest.)GJC 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Disregarding Scarian's actions, shouldn't User:Sum88's edits be reverted. Per WP:BAN, LukeTheSpook is guilting of meatpuppeting by reverting. Grsz11 →Review! 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you';re quite sure he's meating, then yes, he should be blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I would think that LukeTheSpook reverting Scarians reverts of Sum88 were very wrong, and have the urge to undo every one of them. Certainly Scarian's response was inappropriate, but Luke was 100% wrong in his actions as well. Grsz11 →Review! 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Both editors were in the wrong here. Enigma message 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I feel bad for Scarian. Wikipedia can wear you into the ground, betimes, and we admins have to always take the high-ground on all these things. Or at least we're supposed to! I just have to nod in his direction and say yeah, that was waayy out of order, sure, but who hasn't felt like that on here. It's a tough, thankless job betimes. Scarian, you're a good admin & I've had tons of dealings with you. Maybe take a break for a while then take up the sysop bit again when you're clear of all the wikistress™ ? - Alison ❤ 05:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sockpuppet Sorry to hear that Scarian was desysoped, but the issue hasn't been resolved. Checking over Sum88 (talk · contribs)'s edits, I stumbled upon new user Sum44 (talk · contribs), whom I just indef'ed. I realize the comments were coarse, but there is a legitimate issue here; I'll start checking for other abusive accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Slayer account and its sockpuppets have been a problem for months. Enigma message 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] File at WP:RFCU and note that I have already asked Rlevse to look into this (to avoid duplication of effort). You can drop a link to the request on User talk:Rlevse. There are probably more socks out there. Jehochman Talk 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] All of Scarian's edits actions were perfectly valid. He is one of the best administrators Wikipedia has. I know if I was an admin and working hard to upkeep Wikipedia policies... and some admitted sockpuppet was following behind me and undermining my work... I'd tell them to f*ck off too. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Why hasn't LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been blocked for Lukestar1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11 →Review! 01:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Blocked LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for abusing multiple accounts, namely sum44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and sum88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), both of which are blocked for socks of PeaceOfSheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). LuketTheSpook has been using the same IP address as Sum44, and therefore it can be inferred that the other accounts are of the same user. (Question: Why was I able to see the information that LikeTheSpook and Sum44 have been sharing the same IP address? Isn't this normally reserved for those with CU access?) seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] There's no rush here. Be methodical and work with checkusers to make sure these are all correct blocks, and that you aren't missing any sleeper socks. Jehochman Talk 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'll echo some of the comments above, and I see no rationale for the desysoping. It wasn't an emergency desysop, and given the circumstances behind the commentary -- especially in light of the abusive accounts that have been floated around, I believe that the desysop should have gone through the normal desysoping process. Or at the least, ask him on his talk page the rationale behind the comments. It's good to know that he took accountability for his comments, and that he is going on a Wikibreak. I have no problem if he came back at a future date, after his break, and having his tools returned to him. He is an efficient and valuable administrator, and outside of this incident -- which is a continuation of much abuse from varying abusive accounts, I can find little ill. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't think a desysopping was in order here, Jimbo. Yes, he was out of line, and yes those edits should have never seen the light of day; however, Scarian has been a longstanding user here of exceptional quality, and this is the first time he's done anything like this. He's not a toddler; we don't have to take away his toy if he hits someone with it. I can safely say that I'm 200% behind him getting his sysop back. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Now that Luke has been blocked for socking, Scarian needs his sysop back. Grsz11 →Review! 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to think we raise standards, not lower them, for longstanding users of exceptional quality. Let Scarian get his sysop back through the normal means with some dignity at a later date.--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] If what seicer says is true, and if LtS and Sum44 are using the same IP address, then (per this: 01:04, 16 November 2008 Scarian (Talk | contribs) blocked Sum88 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: See User:SlayerXT)) LtS might quite possibly be SlayerXT (the original user whom Luke and I had a disagreement over his socking abuse)... Can a CU confirm this? ScarianCall me Pat! 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]  Confirmed LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs) = Sum44 (talk · contribs) = PeaceOfSheet (talk · contribs)  Unrelated Sum88 (talk · contribs) but there are meatpuppet issues here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] PS LukeTheSpook is the master acct. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]  Stale SlayerXT (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Shame about it being stale. I'm convinced Slayer=LukeTheSpook and it's all part of one massive sockfarm created to disrupt Wikipedia. I fear this isn't over. Enigma message 04:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] You're 100% correct there E_man. That SlayerXT was just another sock in a drawer of many was/is pretty obvious. (See: SlayerXTT (talk · contribs) for another one). There will likely be more. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Going to need some assistance here. I'm attempting to go through the edits of the various socks to see what needs to be reverted. Sum88 added several images and articles, for example. Enigma message 04:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] With that out of the way... Well, with that resolved, can we get on looking into how Seicer was somehow able to conduct an ad hoc checkuser on these accounts [88]? That seems more worrisome than any low-level sockpuppetry or admin-blowups. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I was quite confused by his question. "Why was I able to see the information" - what information? Where is this information? We have no idea how he was able to see it until we know what 'it' is. Mr.Z-man 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Seicer: Did you click on Special:Checkuser and not get an error? J.delanoygabsadds 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not for sure. I went to unblock LookTheSpook to adjust the rationale given, and next to "user/reason" was a bit about LookTheSpook having edited through an IP address that was used by Sum44. seicer | talk | contribs 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I asked a checkuser off-wiki to check to logs to determine if there have been suspicous checkuser actions (ie not by the usual checkuser, so like Seicer), and there has been no such logged activity.--Maxim(talk) 02:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't see anything in the source for the unblock form that would do something like that and it doesn't run any extension hooks. Does it still do it? Mr.Z-man 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] ^Looks like I made much ado over nothing, actually. I mixed up where I saw the message; it was in the global block list that shows all recent user blocks/etc., and my entry stated, 22:25, 16 November 2008, Seicer (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #1217642 (expires 22:25, 17 November 2008, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Sum44". The reason given for Sum44's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".) (Unblock) Sorry for the confusion and mass hysteria over this! seicer | talk | contribs 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Conditions for reinstating the bit Since there are a few editors here who do not agree with the desysop I'd like to formally ask (before anything else happens) how Scarian may regain his bit. From what I can tell, a vacation is suggested but I'd like to begin discussion with respect to this matter. Synergy 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I suggest that the past couple of hours that Scarian has been without his deserved admin status are more than enough and that he should get his mop back ASAP. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] People in positions of power and responsibility must not blow up regardless of provocation. There needs to be some assurance that such a thing will never happen again. looie496 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well, Jimbo giveth, Jimbo taketh away. I would suggest as a way forward that Scarian, whom I have not previously encountered, take a break for a week or so, then approach Jimbo about getting his bit back. Really, there's no rush, and a week is a sufficiently long span of time online for reflection. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Jimbo giveth what? --NE2 03:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well, strike that and reverse it. What I'm saying is that Jimbo can simply re-sysop him at an appropriate interval; I don't see any need for another RfA or anything like that. I suppose he could apply to Arbcom as well, but that's effectively the same thing as asking Jimbo. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Unlike you, I don't exactly trust Jimbo to do what's appropriate. --NE2 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] To be blunt, that is too bad. Regardless of whether you trust Jimbo or not, regardless of whether he should be or not, he is the final say on this until we hear otherwise. Haranguing him isn't going to make it any easier, and I somehow doubt its what Scarian would want either.--Tznkai (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] How does the other editor being a sock/meatpuppet excuse that behavior from an admin or anyone, or justify restoring the bit under any circumstances? Further, this is not an isolated incident: Scarian was only recently involved in baiting one of our top content contributors over an erroneous block log and misunderstandings by admins over jokes with a friend on their own talk pages. [89] [90] It's not an isolated incident; a longer break is in order, and a new RfA if interested in getting the bit back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Um? What was the problem there? Wesley Dodds was clearly edit warring over content and Scarian gave him a very justified warning. Only to have Ceoil tell Wesley Dodds to ignore it... which was extremely ignorant and uncalled for. The warning was valid. A bad faith post on this page to try and make Scarian look bad ended up backfiring and the original complaint author ended up as the dirty one even though the whole incident started over Wesley Dodds' persistent edit warring over genres. I said it earlier... when someone(pretending to be many) is trying to damage Wikipedia.. it's OK to tell that someone to f*ck off... even when they are an admin. Scarian should be re-sysop'd now. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not going to type paragraphs to straighten out the story again; you'll have to do your own homework. Scarian baited Ceoil over Ceoil's faulty block log (caused by previous admin misunderstandings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I support a desysop, but not this desysop. Jimbo has no legitimate authority to do these things on his own. The community giveth, and the community taketh away. He should have either waited for a community process to make the decision, or for Scarian to explicitly renounce it. He should not have acted on his own initiative. That said, I thought Scarian should have been desysopped a long time ago...hell, I don't think he should ever have been sysopped. Resysop him, and then let's go about this the right way and see what the community decides. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] If I may, I'd like to remind everyone that Jimbo desysopped Scarian because he believed his account to be compromised (and I'm sure people can see where he's coming from). There's plenty of logic in taking down an account that could be used to blank the main page a few seconds later. However, now that we know what actually happened, I think that Scarian's sysop should be reinstated and then the community can decide whether he should keep it or not. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] You have it well encapsulated MoP. Jimbo was protecting Wiki with an immediate desysop based on, at least partially believing that Pat's account was compromised. Jumping on Jimbo for that is unhelpful. Scarian is a good operator (and to declare my bias a wiki-friend of mine) however I think he would agree that he gets somewhat heated at times and I think he will declare his own break from administrating for a bit. Jimbo please reinstate now that we know the account is not compromised and then raise an appropriate discussion for the community to consider.--VS talk 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I only met Scarian recently. In the exchange we had he was very friendly, enthusiastic, helpful and unassuming. The Scarian I met was an example of what in my mind constitutes an excellent person and a very approachable and realistic administrator. The job of an administrator is sometimes toxic due to the exposure they get to many kinds of repetitive and difficult situations. There should be some way for otherwise solid members of the community to regain their footing. I think MoP's and VirtualSteve's suggestions make the best sense under the circumstances. Dr.K. (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, actually it was because he took the words of a ban-evading sockpuppet/troll at face value, and reacted in haste without familiarizing himself with the entire situation. Sorry, I'm afraid "looks like a compromised account" is too handy an excuse to justify virtually any action. Somebody you've never even heard of complains that somebody else you've never heard of is now acting differently than a true Scotsman would, so they obviously must be hijacked? Whatever! — CharlotteWebb 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm okay with the desysop. We can't have an admins talking to people like that without consequence - you have to think how it looks to the outside world. But I ask Jimmy not to make it a permanent desysop or one requiring a new RfA but instead restore the admin flag if Scarian contacts him after having a bit of a break. If Steve is correct that Scarian is going to have a break from admining then it doesn't hurt for Jimmy to take a bit of time restoring it. Sarah 07:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I say just resysop now. I think Scarian has gotten the message. He was being trolled, and he snapped. Scarian ought to have tackled the situation more gracefully, but I absolutely hate it when a disruptive user, one who has nothing positive to offer the project, can provoke an excellent user into doing something stupid which gets him desysopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop unconditionally. This was a totally out of line and undeserved desysopping, and Jimbo should apologize. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop after a week - I think these edits show he needs a wikibreak. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop--in a few days. Since the account is not, in fact, compromised, I would hope for the following: 1. Seicer Scarian takes a week or two off. 2. Seicer Scarian comes back and gives us reasonable assurances that this won't happen again. 3. Jimbo returns the bit, with clear understanding on all three sides--Seicer's, Scarian's, Jimbo's, and the community's--of what will happen should this unfortunate behavior recur. Today, particularly, I can understand the degree of annoyance that can cause an admin to act rather un-admin-ly; however, there's a difference between mild-severe sarcasm and a flat-out carpet-bombing with the F word. I'm sure Seicer Scarian understands this; sometimes, though, the button gets pushed. If Seicer Scarian can assure us that the button will be wired to a more-appropriate mechanism in the future, I see no reason for, and many reasons against, keeping him de-adminned. [[User talk:Gladys j cortezNumbskull|GJC]] 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) What did Seicer do, other than cause some momentary confusion by claiming he was suddenly a checkuser? L'Aquatique[talk] 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think we mean Scarian and not Seicer - Yes?--VS talk 09:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh yes indeed we do. I have struck through and refactored. I am dumbass, hear me roar; there really SHOULD be autoblocks on editing after 3 AM local time. Sorry, Seicer...GJC 09:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Desysop Seicer now for addling Gladys' brain and other crimes against humanity!! L'Aquatique[talk] 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop now and let Scarian decide his own terms for taking a WikiBreak. He's a fine admin in my book, though. GlassCobra 09:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop. Everyone snaps occasionally, and Scarian unsnapped very gracefully and with an apology, more than I probably would manage. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop. He made some foolish and deeply uncivil comments. He held his hands up straight away and acknowledged the mistakes. No weaseling, no trying to justify it. That takes a lot and I respect him for it. I admit I'm biased here as I've only ever had positive interaction with Scarian but that's my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop Yes, he snapped, but he acknoledged it. I suggest he gets it back but really considers wikibreak to relax. If there are RL problems, he should solve them first, but that does not mean we got to force him away. It would be harsh for a first-time violation to desysop when the user has given hours after hours of his spare time for the project. Oh and please, people, stop attacking Jimbo because of it. He desysopped because he thought the account was compromised, not because he thought Scarian was behaving this way... You are reading too much into it that he never said... Regards SoWhy 10:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop when Pat feels he is ready. I would have made comments along the lines that Sjakkalle and ЯEDVERS did, but they made them first.--Alf melmac 10:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop. Taking away the bit is for either flagrant abuses of the tools, or a consistent pattern of poor behaviour, not one episode of losing your temper with a troll. Black Kite 10:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop. Yep, what Black Kite said. This desysopping seems like an overreaction to me. We don't really need these kinds of Olympian lightening bolts from Jimbo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop when Scarian asks any 'crat. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop immediately. A massive over-reaction. Surely there have been worse things done by admins than this that didn't get an insta-deadmin? I can't see how it would have been compromised. A compromised account would go on a deletion spree or vandalism, not argue with a troll. Scarian should not have to beg Jimbo for his bit that the community granted him. It should be given straight back now, no questions asked. What a load of fuss about nothing. Al Tally talk 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop but ONLY when Scarian feels he's taken a good wikibreak. Jimbo was concerned that "none of our admins would act like this". If a regular EDITOR did this, they'd be banned for a week or more. We're obviously not banning Scarian - but I think it's up to them to decide when they have had the chance to naval-gaze for awhile. I don't think I have seen them ask for it back yet. We have to hold our admins to the same (or higher) standard as we do our editors, or else the cries of favouritism and cabals will resound. -t BMW c- 12:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop, no abuse of tools. Other factors are inconsequential in this context, and not addressed by desysopping, only aggravated and inflamed. The panic-like reaction suggests that Jimbo has little idea what goes on here on a daily basis. Would he tell me I was nuts if I said "well, Scarian was still one of our better admins"? Would he say my account "must be compromised" for believing this? Right… — CharlotteWebb 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to be a voice of opposition here and agree with the desysopping and oppose immediate resysopping. From the third diff, there are obviously some issues there that some time (like 1-2 weeks) might help. I also think it is a worthwhile endeavor to provide some time for looking over diffs to make sure that this reaction was an atypical one and not a behavior that has been going on, but nobody had noticed. --B (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop upon Scarian's request for the return of the tools; let him take his break and consider how he wishes to contribute in the future, I would dislike for him to return prematurely because his friends have resaddled the horse for him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Resysop — Not that I don't trust Jimbo's judgment. Desysopping what appeared to be a compromised account indeed seemed like the right thing to do. Give Scarian a while to take a break and relieve his wiki-stress, and give him back the mop on request. His behavior seems like a mere lapse in judgment, and, although it's been said, Scarian is an excellent administrator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Any 'crats about? Given the clear consensus above, are there any "brave" bureacrats who will respond to the communities wishes and regrant the tools at this stage? If not, then calls for a resysop are partly moot until Jimbo or a Steward intervene. Pedro :  Chat  11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Careful, they might be mistaken for a "compromised account". — CharlotteWebb 11:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ignoring the "voters" above for a moment, I wonder if anyone has bothered to actually ask User:Jimbo Wales to resysop? In every other situation like this that I can recall, he's been understanding, and was happy to discuss details with the admin in question. TYpically resolving to their (and the community's) satisfaction. I guess I'm not thrilled with so much presumption of "bad faith" of him, without supporting evidence. And before anyone suggests he was displaying bad faith, I remind everyone that even the admin in question agrees that the comments were inappropriate, and didn't oppose the desysop. (Incidentally, due to the latter, I personally wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the admin being resysopped after a period of time, myself.) - jc37 11:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, you're right Jc37 - Jimbo should have been asked directly - my apologies. I've therefore asked the question [91]. Pedro :  Chat  12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't think there's much presumption of bad faith; it could've been a compromised account, but it wasn't, and the community appears to generally disagree with Jimbo that Scarian "needs a major vacation from being an admin". Let's give him his bit back and mark this resolved with the minimum of fuss. Black Kite 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any bad faith here (or any meaningful presumption of any). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] There is no consensus for an immediate resysop and any crat would be ill-advised to reverse Jimbo here. My personal thought is that the behaviour by the admin was atrocious, and whilst it may be that we should give him another chance, an immediate resysop sends all the wrong signals. Let kick his heals for a week or more, and then see what Jimbo says. If Jimbo doesn't say yes, then test the community's will to resysop at RfA. I'd probably support resysopping if there's contrition. But we can't have admins behaving like this and thinking they have impunity. They don't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] I can point out several other administrators who have used such language repeatedly, yet continue to receive a green pass each and every time. Why does this administrator, who was desysoped for either those comments or for having a possibly compromised account, become desysoped on-the-bat with no discussion? That and the complaining account that started this was an abusive account should have some say. seicer | talk | contribs 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully they'll be next on the chopping block then. I'll echo Scott's statement that there is NOT a consensus, community consensus isn't found from a discussion that goes on for some eight hours when most of the Western hemisphere is sleeping, all you get is a small segment of users who are on the thread at those hours. I'd like to further note that this is quickly not about Scarian, but about something and someone else, and those urging for Scarian's resysop might see that Scarian didn't argue with the desysop himself. He knew he screwed up, admitted it, and is on vacation. Let him go in peace and dignity, and welcome him on his return.--Tznkai (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] "most of the Western hemisphere is sleeping" I'm guessing you're from America, and kind of forgot about the micronations of Europe! :). However you and Scott are right - 8 hours is not sufficent to show consensus and I've modified my comments on Jimbo's talk page. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Most of Europe is not in the Western hemisphere. You and Tznkai are right - consensus is not demonstrated by an 8 hour poll, and its unclear if consensus on this page even after a longer period of time would be sufficient to undo Jimbo's desysop without his permission or assent from ArbCom. Avruch T 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] My opinion on the matter was more general, as you'll see if you look at my comment above. We should not be desysopping for a single inappropriate incident that didn't involve use of the tools. Repeated incidents of the same kind would be a different matter. Black Kite 13:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] If Jimbo Wales does not reverse or modify his action, the appropriate forum to seek review of the desysopping would be a request to the Arbitration Committee. Scarian's approval should be sought before making such a request. I express no view on how I would vote on any such request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Agreed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Correct, and after he is comfortable with coming back to Wikipedia. There is no rush here. seicer | talk | contribs 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment In response to all of the above: I will be taking a prolonged Wiki break. I do thank everyone for their support and it's very much appreciated. I can count the amount of times that I've been in disputes since becoming an admin just on one hand. I'm not a bad guy. If any one of you would have met me in real life and told me you were from the Wiki I would've taken you out for a beer and we could've become great friends. That's what I like about the Wiki, there's a strong community that can cross over into IRL. So, for that reason alone, I won't leave entirely as it's still the shining beacon that keeps me here. In regards to Jimbo's desysopping: I totally agree that what I did was awful (completely reprehensible), and I fully deserved it. He did nothing wrong, he was protecting the Wiki. And I have always greatly respected, admired, and trusted his judgment and will continue to do so; I harbor no ill-feelings towards him whatsoever. Personally, I can hold my head up high here still (kinda): As an admin I did everything to the letter. I cleared out 50+ backlogs at WP:SSP (twice) with E-man. For 3-4 months, before Ed Johnston and Willaim came back, I was the only regular and active admin at the WP:3RR board, which I felt was really rewarding (I even wrote the admin instructions for it). On being an admin: It's not about having the power (It really isn't, being an admin can make you become one of the most hated people on Wiki), it's not about being in the cool crowd, and it's certainly not for the fun. People become admins because they want to help, which is why I can proudly boast and say: "I did help." Anyways, a break will do me good. As a PS: Thanks to the admins who uncovered the sock farms, and thanks to those who discovered that Luke was meating/socking too. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Have a good break. Come back later and tell us what the real world looks like.--Tznkai (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] (looks around nervously) There's a "real world" out there besides Wikipedia? Please, tell us all you're kidding. Please? : ) - jc37 14:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kudos for the mea culpa. Far too few people are willing to do that, as opposed to lashing out against Jimbo and the system. If we were all a little more huimble about our mistakes and flare ups - we'd all get on better. Thanks for taking this line. In light of your attitude, I for one would support your immediate resysopping on your return (even if that's 24 hours from now). I'm opposing it now as it would tend to imply to others that Jimbo did wrong, or that your action was trivial. He didn't and it wasn't. But you've realised that, and we all screw up. So, if you need me to toot for your resysopping, just let me know.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Jimbo has resysoped Scarian. Can we archive this now?Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An SPA called timbost (talk · contribs) has been causing a bit of trouble in that article, first attempting to insert a spirited defense of what is surely a fringe theory if there ever was one (it was reverted by myself and another editor), now inserting an external link to a commercial site. I have already advised him on his talk page that this won't fly, and could continue to deal with this, but since I feel that I'm coming across a bit heavy, I wonder if it might not be useful for somebody else to have a word with him. looie496 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Financial astrology"? Oh, so THAT's how they decided that bailout thing. GJC 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tied to this - please please anyone with ten minutes to spare - turn the flamethrowers on William Delbert Gann, I came across it while checking this matter out. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only all our problem pages were this easy to solve. – iridescent 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronshavit (talk · contribs) is continually recreating a deleted article. The history of the article is somewhat lengthy; he first tried to re-write the Racism and Zionism article[92], and when his changes were rejected, he created the article in his userspace, User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations.[93] He made a total of 3 edits to the page in August 2007, and then instantiated it into the article space as Israel and Racism, which was subsequently deleted via an AfD as a poorly-written and biased WP:POVFORK (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel and racism). He made one more edit to his personal copy; it was then nominated for deletion, which failed (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations). He made one further edit to his copy, in July 2008 - a total of 5 edits in all to the main copy, all fairly minor.

In August 2008, the article it was a POVFORK of, Racism and Zionism, was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racism_and_Zionism). In October, his POVFORK was also put up for deletion, with the nominator describing it as an "Abandoned soapbox being treated as an article, POV pushing in userspace", and noting that it came up second in various Google searches. This time the consensus was to delete (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)).

Since then Aaronshavit has recreated the article 3 times, first as User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism on October 10, which I deleted on October 12 as a WP:CSD G4, then as User:Aaronshavit/racism and Zionism on November 7, which I deleted again on November 11 as a WP:CSD G4. At that time I warned him on his Talk page not to re-create the page. However, today, November 17, he has again recreated the article User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. At no time has he made any substantive modifications to his copies, and I believe his use of modified names for each copy may have been for the purpose of avoiding detection (so that it wouldn't show up on the watchlist of anyone involved in the deletion).

Given this is his third re-creation of deleted material, and that he has recreated it in defiance of warnings not to do so, I was planning to block him, but thought I would present the issue here for a discussion of the length of that block. Is 24 hours for a first offense reasonable? Or, given that he edits intermittently, and might not even notice a 24 hour block, is a longer block reasonable? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there's nothing wrong with starting at 24 hours, then escalating as necessary. I'm taking as given that there's strong community consensus that this material isn't coming back. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the six-day period between recreations a week makes more sense. 24hrs will not prove a meaningful deterrent. -- Y not? 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd leave unblocked for now, reiterate the warning in the most specific possible terms ("If you re-create that article in substantively the same form again, I will block you.") and then see what happens (possibly a second admin should be the one to provide the new warning, and I'd be happy to do so if consensus is that that's the right route). This warning should probably also include an explanation of WP:DRV, if the user believes that the deletion decision at MFD was somehow in error. In the event of a further re-creation, I don't think an indef block would be out of order, as the account would be showing the intention to continue violating policy indefinitely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor politician, whose bio is the recurring subject of a long-term edit war. Personally, I'd like to see the article trimmed of all non-essential information, but this is a continuing battleground for partisan bickering. Please consider page protection, if needed. JNW (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've semi-protected on the m:wrong version. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This individual had been creating rapid-fire abusive sockpuppets and was also wreaking havoc from an IP. I think this sock may still be unblocked. Just thought I should let someone know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thankfully. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved
  Blocked for username violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new single-purpose account, DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs) is making many somewhat controversial edits (such as deleting the "Criticism" section) to Jewish Internet Defense Force. Things had been very quiet there since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on October 4, 2008. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This account appears indistinguishable from Einsteindonut in terms of interests and behaviors. Whether it is them, or a sympathizer following the same agenda does not matter, per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. What shall we do? I think we should consider whether to block them as a sock. Perhaps a checkuser could take a quick look. I've invited the user to comment here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need a checkuser? The name alone is probably blockable, but combined with single-purpose account behaviour and obvious previous editing experience, this is a clearly disruptive second account. An experienced editor can make controversial edits under his own account or not at all. (Blanking sections of a controversial article takes us clearly into 'bad-hand' sock territory.) The only useful purpose that a checkuser might serve here is to clear the drawer of sleeper socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is "drama?" My apologies. I don't know what you are talking about. I just learned about the JIDF from the Ha'aretz piece and didn't feel the WP article was very fair to the organization, so I created an account to help make it better. I accidentally took out the "Criticism" section upon making edits, and re-added it. However, I'm not sure what WP's policy is of using articles which are originally in German. I feel if criticism is to be made about an organization, that we should only rely upon an accurate, FAZ approved, translation. I'm not sure one is available? --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, I added other cited material from the new Ha'aretz article, which was quickly reverted by Nagle. It was new background information which I thought was important. --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indefed the account for a username vio. It also looks like a sock to me but as this is clearly a disruptive name we can do without it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is a good idea for thoroughly investigating sock puppetry that may involved use of multiple accounts or block or ban evasion. It would be best to connect the account to a master account and empty any sock drawer. Is there a CU hanging around or do we need to bring this case over to WP:RFCU? Jehochman ^Talk 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we list it as there is no rush now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am shutting down for the night. Please do list it, because there seems to be a reasonable basis. Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disruptive username? Huh? It only is one because of who it might be, and/or the edits they have made. I hate to say so, but NPOV is a key policy, and how many times a day does wikidrama occur in this forum because people are POV-pushing. I hate to use the example, but "Master of Puppets", based on meaning alone would be considered more disruptive (no offence intended). If someone created the usernames "AlwaysAGF" and "DontBeAnEditWarrer", are we going to delete them too? -t BMW c- 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMW, I partially agree with you but I also think that such a name is somewhat indicative of puppetry. Think about it, POV Pusher is uniquely Wikipedian lingo, it's unlikely that a new user would use it right off the bat... L'Aquatique[talk] 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree that it's not a new user - but we're talking right now about a block due to the username alone. Prove it's a sock (or have a little more duck-like properties than an obvious knock-off of policy) and I'm good with it. Maybe someone wants to properly move to a new name (highly unlikely, but it can happen). -t BMW c- 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the person reverted by POVPusher, I did consider coming here or going to a senior admin but decided not to. I also considered the POVPusher = ED equation, but POVPusher didn't react to my reference to JIDF as "your lot" whilst ED always vigorously denied any such connection. It's unfortunate that the JIDF are so wedded to the glamour of clandestine action that they can't create an account with their name that contributes to the talk page alone. Then they could draw our attention to new articles about them and complain about and explain anything they considered misrepresentation. Instead they have this series of edit warrior accounts that are transparently connected to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfcbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of Rfcbeach137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvio image from Canon USA and calls it his own. Image must also be deleted from Commons. Dr.K. (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He actually uploaded many more copyvio images. I have reverted them all. But someone has to inform Commons about this avalanche of copyvios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock, warned sockmaster. I'll ask the guys at commons to check this out. Thanks for reporting it! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Master of Puppets for the swift action. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contacted SterkeBak who will look after images. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could someone please take a look/whack at Iridonian Jagi? It probably should've been deleted under CSD like the creator's other Wookieepedia(?) copy-and-paste -- but my CSD request was removed because the article was already prodded. The article creator removed the prod, but given the short editing history and bias toward his work, I restored it. Nevertheless, this seems a pretty clear cut example of something that should not be here. --EEMIV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Deleted because it fails WP:FICT. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sauve.sean (talk · contribs) has returned from a block for edit warring as IP 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs) (note his comments on the Suave.sean talk page to establish his identity). He is now edit warring at Same-sex marriage as seen here [94] [95] [96]. He has also promised to continue his edit war, referring to it as "war" [97] [98]. Would an admin please step in and handle this returning POV warrior? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely the same person. Sauve.sean and his IP blocked for a week. Spellcast (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User switched to a different IP in same range; that IP was blocked, page protected for three days. Good night. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: [99]- blocked 24 hours for puppetry and block evasion. L'Aquatique[talk] 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Ricky81682 keeps removing good portion of this article claiming lack of reliable resources. See [100]. The resources are given - the only problem is - Ricky does not read the reference given there - see [101].--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been full-protected by SoWhy (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-burning edit war here, with editors reverting and telling each other to "see talk", which no-one has contributed in over a year. Questionably sourced material seems to be at the heart of it. Can an uninvolved admin take a look please? Gracias, the skomorokh 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Budwhop, User:Iamabreakdancer, User:83.105.17.82 are sockpuppets vandalising the article. Please help. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]