Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500

Blatant case of administrator abuse

Resolved

 – Unprotected, both editors warned. Kwami should not have protected the page, and would do well not to repeat that stunt. Little point in blocking either or both when edit-war finished 5 hours ago.

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm currently involved in the most absurd content dispute with another editor (User:Kwamikagami) over at the Swahili language page. It turns out that the other editor is an adminstrator. I found this out when he locked the page in his preferred version -- a clear case of administrator abuse:

"Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

I've quoted for the offending administrator the same passage above from WP:ADMIN, and told him to unlock the page. However, he insists on keeping it locked in his preferred version. Can an uninvolved adminstrator who does actually respect Wikipedia's policies and doesn't abuse his or her own administrator privileges unlock the page and at the very least have a word with this administrator? Thank you in advance. Middayexpress (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the diffs on the article. It's very clearly a content dispute. No vandalism and no need for protection. The admin who protected it, Kwamikagami, is involved in the content dispute. Seems like ultra bad judgement on the part of Kwamikagami. Bstone (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone for your feedback. That's just what I'd thought. Are you by any chance an administrator yourself? If so, in your experience, how does one go about dealing with such cases? Does the administrator get a warning of some kind or something else maybe? Middayexpress (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment, this is very poor judgment and he needs to explain it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural note: User:Kwamikagami notified of this thread EyeSerene^talk 08:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of incident that should be taken to AdminWatch, but unfortunately it won't be launched for a few weeks. Are you interested in filing a notification? If so, please let me know and I'll think about how to use this as the first case. It's important that we start keeping records of regrettable behaviour such as this. Tony (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed the article under protection for 24 hrs to give Middayexpress a chance to provide some references for his repeated deletion of information from the article, and ones related to it. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask someone to provide evidence before blanking information that is readily supportable by numerous sources. He should at least use a tag. I'm not the only editor who disagrees with him; one of the others accused him of "acting like a child". There are multiple reliable sources as late as 2007 (such as Derek Nurse, a respected Africanist working on comparative Bantu) stating that Swahili is spoken in Somalia. It is entirely possible that they have all fled the country, and if they have, so be it, but Middayexpress has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever for this. He's simply going by the fact that the CIA doesn't specifically mention Swahili; if you look at their language coverage, you'll see it's very spotty, and in general they only mention the major languages of a country. (There are, of course, other languages in Somalia, such as Oromo, which Middayexpress is evidently also denying because they're not mentioned by the CIA.) If you look at Japan, for example, the only language listed is "Japanese". One can hardly infer from that that Ainu and Okinawan are extinct, or that ethnic Koreans and Chinese speak only Japanese; similarly, you cannot infer from the limited coverage under 'France' that Tahitian and all the Amerindian languages of French Guiana are extinct. Negative evidence is not a valid argument. kwami (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First, note that you also violated WP:3RR on that page. Second, your explanation above doesn't explain in any way why you don't think the protection policy applies in this case. Your conduct has not been good, here; I recommend that you at least acknowledge that. That said, Bstone, please don't template the regulars, as you did here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect the page yourself, immediately. Regardless of who is correct, this is still a content dispute. I'm still looking at whether any other action needs to be taken regarding 3RR. Black Kite 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't endorse unprotecting the page; while protecting it was a clear violation of policy, it's unquestionable that there was an edit war going on, and if I'd come across the page at WP:RFPP I'd have protected. Unprotecting because it was gamed by the protecting admin isn't going to solve anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be an uninvolved admin who does it. Or it should just be "I'm unlocking this, but one more blind revert from either of you and the banhammer comes out". Black Kite 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be an uninvolved admin. But would anything really be gained if I headed over there and unprotected it with a rationale of "improper protection", and then reprotected with the rationale "edit war"? Your second solution works for me, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and implemented that measure. Both editors informed. Black Kite 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds eminently fair. Black Kite, if there are any further problems, I'll come to you. Hopefully we can resolve this on the talk page. kwami (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As expected, Kwamikagami is not telling the truth. The truth is that there was already a discussion going on my talk page on well before he ever took it upon himself to lock the Swahili language article in his preferred version. Instead of pursuing said discussion, Kwamikagami did exactly as I explained above and the uninvolved editors Bstone, Crossmr, Tony1, and Sarcasticidealist have all correctly deduced. Coincidence? I think not. If there's any doubt, please follow the links to said discussion and the article's history page and compare the time stamps to see that this is indeed the case. I have to agree with Tony1 especially given Kwamikagami's unrepentant attitude that an AdminWatch notification is definitely in order. Middayexpress (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are only two editors involved, both have exceeded 3RR and are well aware that they are being watched now. I doubt either of them are going to do anything silly like continue the edit-war. I've left a note for requesting that user:Middayexpress confirms that they wont edit this part of the article for 24hrs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (but it looks like BlackKite has gone and done it...which is good)

Would y'all mind keeping an eye on Barawa and Bravanese people, which are under related edit wars? kwami (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite shows again how skilled he is at dealing with such situations, and he knows I have great respect for his work. However, his very skill at stepping in and righting the wrong after the fact has swept under the carpet an issue that I suspect the complainant feels is anything but "Resolved" (the word that neatly adorns the top of this section). I have a fear that nothing has been learnt or acknowledged. Let me say now that I see on Kwami's talk page evidence of knowledge that is valuable to the project, and that he may be right in a content sense (I'm not going there—it's irrelevant). I also need to declare that my comments here have probably disqualified me from managing the case at AdminWatch, which itself has rules governing conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion trouble

• Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests contained this request:-
  • C.D. Chivas USA to Club Deportivo Chivas USA – BlueRed – 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  So I did so. I histmerged the talk pages correctly. Then I went to histmerge the article pages: Move C.D. Chivas USA to Club Deportivo Chivas USA: it asked me if I wanted Club Deportivo Chivas USA (with 1084 edits) to be deleted to allow the move, so I told it to: OK, and it deleted it and made the move. Then I tried to undelete those 1084 deleted edits of Club Deportivo Chivas USA to finish the histmerge, and Wikipedia system is being a snail and a snail and refuses to perform that undelete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • P.S. I tried that undelete again, clicking the box to invert the selection of which edits to undelete, and the undelete worked OK. There seems to be a bug in the (part of the undeletion mechanism) that treats "no edits checked" as meaning "undelete all" rather than "undelete none". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bug it's a feature ^^. Selecting nothing has the same behavior than selecting everything there (or you wouldn't click Undelete in the first place). On big undeletions, note that the system is a bit slow sometimes and the restored revisions can take a while to show up again. It seems everything is OK now (I see no deleted revisions). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempted outing By User:Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Evidence is here.[1]. I would reccomend a block of 24 hours with the understanding that this is never acceptable regardless of disagreements with editors over sources or content disputes.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a notice to assume good faith. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While outing is never appropriate, we're not a promotional site. The majority of user:Syntacticus's edits have been adding citations or external links to reports written by one person. There is evidence that he has used an IP owned by that person's employer. If the user would stop being so single-minded about promoting that person then the concerns over his possible conflict of interest would be lessened. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of such like behaviour. He accused me several times wof being a sock of Brian of Palatine. There should not be two standards here, one for users whom we find annoyiing and distasteful and others whom we agree with . There should be something more than a warning to assume good faith . Speculation as to who a user might be is verboten and this user (Bali ultimate) should be sanctioned with more than a" please assume good faith". There are people here who I have deduced who they are in real life and i disagree with them on issues. If I speculate on who they are or ask them if they are who i believe they are on the talk page, will you both just tell me to assume good faith ? If so, I can't wait to get started as I believe that it will prove embarraessing for the two individuuals.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually ,this behaviour is harrassment and covered under WP:OUTING. Bali nominated an article for deletion of this user too, a harrassment. Let's try to be fair here, no matter how you feel about Syntacticus.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. "Outing" is revealing a person's real-world identity against their wishes, if not already disclosed on Wikipedia. Accusing one account of being a WP:SOCK of another and requesting an WP:RfCU accordingly, if sincere (i.e. done in good faith) is done all the time and is a legitimate part of running the encyclopedia. It is a suspicion of bad faith, not an assumption of bad faith. If you look at the "Fru23" thread currently on this page you will see a case of dozens of accounts found to be sockpuppets of a single editor gaming the system. At least three large sock families of various levels of sophistication were editing the article in question, ACORN, so it is a legitimate concern. Bali Ultimate is indeed one of the more aggressive editors around here doing what I call "troll patrol" - guarding against vandals, socks, trolls, POV pushers, etc. I have not looked in enough detail to see if he took that too far, but in principle there is nothing wrong with doing this. Legitimate concerns have been raised by longstanding editors as to whether Syntacticus is a sockpuppet / COI editor on articles relating to an organization on whose IP he is editing, and there is an active RfCU on that. Frankly, that CU ought to be performed sooner rather than later. If he is a sock it is a major breach; if not we should clear him as soon as possible and be done with all this drama. Die4Dixie seems to have taken him under his wing and is giving good and patient counsel on how to avoid all this trouble in the future... so the sooner we can put this all to rest the better. Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

the link is above in the complaint. Alledging a COI is OK. Asking him if he is Vadum, and saying that he believes that he is Vadum, is a clear breach of WP:OUTING, especially if it is not on the check user forum. I agree, do a check user, but speculating about the real world identity of this user is no good.(funny, the idea of me taking someone under my wing!)Die4Dixie (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I had assumed Vadum was the name of an account but I see that's the real-life name of one of the CRC editors and former fellows. Although if true this is a significant COI and a considerable ruse by the editor, it is also true that anybody is free to edit the encyclopedia if they want, without threat of outing, and people of all persuasions and occupations are free to check their COI at the door and enjoy the exercise. We should probably wait for some input from administrators familiar with this policy and its applications but it does seem quite wrong to name names like this unless it's known. A WP:TROUT seems appropriate at the very least - blocking is to prevent disruption and would only be appropriate if this continues or becomes a pattern after admonishment to stop. But the more serious issue is that attempted outings ought to be contained - at the very least deleting the offending comment, probably deleting this discussion, and conceivably, redacting the edit histories if that can be done so that the outing is undone.... Whether and how to do that is way over my head. Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What threat of outing? What outing? I asked what i thought was a reasonable question. Dixies claims of my "repeatedly" doing this or that are false. I guess we're done here, at any rate. I'll try to ignore syntacticus one way or the other.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your continued denial shows a lack of contrition, and editors like yourself are bad for this project. Hopefully an admin. who is willing to use the tools will come along before you are able to do any more damage. If you still cannot understand why your questions were not what you thought to be " a reasonable question" then you really don't belong editing until you do for the good of the project. IF after three admins have told you why you cannot engage in this puerile behaviour, then you are either a WP: DICK or WP:DENSE. What ever the case, your personal problem with this editor has gone beyond appropriate. You should find some other topics and leave syntacticus alone.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Outing is unacceptable in any circumstance, and irregardless of a possible conflict of interest. Bali ultimate: anonymity is one of the foundations of Wikipedia, and asking a user if he is person so and so is not a a reasonable question. So don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of banned editor PoliticianTexas, namely TeranceRamirez

Resolved

Blocked user. Orderinchaos 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is very likely a sockpuppet of community-banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Evidence:

• Recreation of deleted article Carlos F. Vigil Middle School: article was originally created by DeLaCueva (talk · contribs), a known sock of PolTx, then the content was moved to Espanola Public Schools and replaced with a redirect; TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs) has moved the content back.
• Made some edits to Espanola Public Schools, a page created by Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) (known PolTx sock) and edited mostly by Thomasalazar and DeLaCueva, although the new edits appear not to duplicate earlier work (diff)
• Made some edits to Espanola, New Mexico, a frequent target of PolTx, although these do not appear to duplicate earlier work (diff)

How about a block of TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked contribs, seems to be a lot of promotional stuff. The articles being edited are same content area and same or similar way to previous user. Have reversed all edits but for a couple which were minorly helpful, and blocked. If an unblock admin considers there is sufficient evidence that this person is not the banned user's latest incarnation, I have no objection to this being reversed. Orderinchaos 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminwatch?

Unresolved

 – Please take this elsewhere. See my comments below. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is admin watch an official process or something? I sense a great instruction creep in the force :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be something Tony1 (talk · contribs) wants to propose - not official process. Toddst1 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it looks it already has its own recusal processes, a COI policy and such. The way Tony talks about it makes me fear this is going to grow as a yet an other process monstrosity. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What's currently wrong about submitting cases to AN/ANI, and then have it escalate (if need be) to dispute resolution or ARBCOM? seicer | talk | contribs 13:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, except that method doesn't have quite enough drama. This looks like a wonder of shrubbery, with sections to be moved hither-and-thither and templates to be completed and comments to be made and hurdles to be jumped and rules to be followed... all so that the one-a-month actual case of minor misuse of tools can be swamped by dozens and dozens of vandals, POV-pushers and general moaners turning up to complain about how ERic IS A FAGGG!!!! was deleted out of process and the rest of the people there can pop the admin concerned on a pillory and throw rotten fruit at them. I'll bet real money that it goes onto MfD roughly the day it opens. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, is that a threat? Trying to destroy it would be the ideal demonstration that the process is sorely required. There is considerable support among users for the initiative, and significant dissatisfaction with the current processes for dealing with grievances concerning the policy rules governing admins. Please be reassured that the process is intended to be balanced, disinterested and NPOV. Redvers, I don't think that you can justify your predictions at this stage. People should have nothing to fear about such a process if the admin policy is taken seriously. Tony (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any threat here. I however see concerns over how it would work. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nice piece of catch-22 reasoning, but does not address Redvers' absolutely valid comments in any meaningful way. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of immediately discounting an editor's hard work to bring transparency to an obscure part of Wikipedia's behavioral policies—the maintainence of the high standards of admins' actions, you might offer suggestions for improvement on User talk:Tony1/AdminWatch. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Redvers already suggested the most appropriate improvement. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

POV pushers and moaners won't get far—they bore me as much as they bore you. What I'm getting here is a sense of fairly aggressive jokiness ("Eric is a fag") about a significant problem at WP. This is a sign of what I believe WPians at large do not like. Tony (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case people might think I'm a power-seeker, I've already declared that I am not interested in running such a process after it has proved itself. My interest is in getting process right, technically and legalistically. Beyond that, my interest at WP is in language. I can see people may also claim that I'm an admin hater; also not so. I want greater social and professional cohesion between admins and non-admins. But this is not the place to debate the matter. Tony (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But the pillory has already begun: Redvers used "fairly aggressive jokiness" on a noticeboard!! zOMG!!!! AdminWatch (not at all Wikipedia's creepiest name) sounds like a kangaroo court to judge admins on their every move, with its hand-picked group of "co-ordinators" who will sit in judgement upon both the complainers and the admins complained about. Have you seen the type and number of complaints the average admin gets? Do you know how often people have called for me to be desysopped or banned for deleting such joys as Portable car, Boobys, Yabba my icing, Robby like chipotle, That girl next to Brandon, Steven Gay willams and Thing Windows xp is better at than Windows Vista? Normally, they can be confined to my talk page. Now they're going to have a whole process devoted to their grievences, with appointed "co-ordinators" deciding whether they should be listened to or not, and no doubt little templates on my talk page telling me where to respond and how and what template to use and where to put it and where to move it and how to complete it and which shrub it goes under... This isn't going to work. Honestly. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. I mean, Google Watch has proven to be an admirably fair and balanced check on the power of that entity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Their sister project has less of a good reputation. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who likes the idea? :) To address your problem Redvers: how about stipulating that <insert number here> registered users have to complain about an admin (or an admin's actions) before a case is initiated... Just a thought. ;) Best, --Cameron* 14:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have that process. It's called RfC. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)It's hardly effective to complain about further process and bureaucracy in a system that thrives on process and bureaucracy such as Wikipedia. The AdminWatch that Tony has proposed is not yet functional, but like all systems, has the flexibility to change when problems arise. This is the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. When something doesn't work, the community changes it. On a micro level, if part of AdminWatch doesn't work, it will be changed. On a macro level, if it does work, admins themselves may change. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or do as I will do: ignore it utterly. It has no powers of enforcement and is bound to end up as a petty annoyance like the unlamented WP:AMA. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I hit the record, for simply removing extreme left wing POV from a BLP and arguing briefly with the user, some person filed a RFCU, a harassment report and an edit war report, AND emailed oversight if they were to be believed, even blogged about me, with all of them being rejected and the user ceasing to edit on the day said rejections became clear. A project such as this, admirable as its intentions are, would simply penalise admins who work in more disputed areas of the 'pedia. Orderinchaos 16:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Redvers: I appreciate your concerns, and note that no one has yet managed to create a fair, constrained, focused process before, althought it's been talked about a lot. I've been made aware in correspondence with FT2, and with at least one hard-working admin on the AdminWatch talk page, just how tricky it is. Heck, mediation on WP is tricky enough, and doesn't really seem to work well at all.

That is why I've built into the process a highly constraining factor. The moaners and POV pushers will be discouraged first-off by the necessity to cite, justify and evidence (through diffs) the specific policy requirement they believe has been botched, by number and letter. They are warned about keeping the personal out of it, of being "extremely civil", and of restricting themselves to the relevant facts. They get booted out if they don't. You're right, the biggest challenge is in filtering out the rubbish. I ask that you wait and see—give it a go. I don't expect to be rushed with complainants because of the tough requirements for admissibility. If there's only one a month (referring to your comment above), that would be great: putting itself out of business is an objective.

Carefully controlled userspace is a good place for this to evolve, given that the required checks and balances would die a death by committee if this were a proposal in public space. The whole purpose is to achieve a more stable wikicommunity. I'm awake for only another hour, but am interested in receiving your advice, if you choose not to ignore it (on the talk page, or people will complain about off-topic discussion?). Tony (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The draft page makes an interesting read, and does bring up some very valid concerns. However, I can't help seeing its ultimate problem in the same way as Redvers states above, although I wouldn't have put it that bluntly ;) Unless it has both teeth and community legitimacy, what's the point? I'd much rather see problem admins handled by a far more rigorous Arbcom - I think we have a promising list of candidates this year - than by a process that runs the risk of creating a siege mentality amongst admins and entrenching an 'us and them' mindset. EyeSerene^talk 15:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What would this committee do if an admin had indeed gone rouge? Start a RfC? Call the Arbcom? That's where I get confused: what's the point of it if it has no power, and what counter-power would prevent the committee to use this to pursue personal vendettas and grudges? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And if the committee "ruled" as such, what would prevent the admin under fire from indef blocking all committee members for disruption? Hiberniantears (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I propose that we have a new noticeboard, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Rouge admin abuse where such complaints can be made and the complainants handed spider-man suits or banninated according to whim. Aggressive archiving of threads inactive for over three minutes should keep the drama content up to the required level and ensure sufficient edit conflicts. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to close

Chaps this is all interesting, and occasionally entertaining, but it's not relevant for ANI. There are plenty of more appropriate fora (sorry, I studied Latin - badly and a long time ago), most notably the talk page of Tony's proposal, or VP or even AN, but not here. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desperate.

Sprogeeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please can someone have a look? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :Possible sock or meat puppet of Putney Bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Sprogeeet for blatant 3RR. Inferno and Duncan seemed to be good-faithedly reverting vandalism (or at least believing they were doing so), so I ignored their edits. --Smashville^talk 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I made up a word - "faithedly". --Smashville^talk 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hey Mr. Foxworthy, have you ever done fool 'round on yer wife??" "No, I done always acted faithedly!" ♪BMWΔ 12:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says wikipedia doesn't originate information? OK, "faithedly" would be the adverb form. I wonder about the noun form. Maybe "faithiness"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gogo, create faithiness before someone else does. We already have truthiness anyway :p -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And to think that's a featured article :) VX!^~~~ 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1 Edit war

This article is a battleground between three editors - Biscuittin, MickMacNee and Tony May. The case is at informal mediation, and a request for formal mediation was rejected because MickMacNee refused to accept the request.

Issues associated with the edit war include WP:ABF, WP:OWN, possible WP:3RR breaches, and accusations of WP:SOCK without raising a sockpuppet case.

As a result of a discussion on WT:UKRAIL, I looked over the article. I downgraded it from B to C class and gave an assessment of where the article needed working on. I pointed out to all three editors the WP:CON needed to be gained over the main area that they disagree on, and showed an example of how to achieve this. To be honest, Biscuittin has shown the most positive response to my comments, and is working at improving the article. There has been no positive response from the other two editors involved. I did ask an Admin to intervene, but that admin has declined as he feels he is not able to address the issues for personal reasons.

Therefore, I'm bringing this to AN/I for discussion as I am of the opinion the MickMacNee and Tony May are not going to stop shouting at each other and start talking to each other. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved, with Mjroots, in attempting to resolve this informally by asking the involved editors to take a step back and remain civil, so far without result. I have also raised the discussion at two project talk pages in an attempt to bring neutral editors into the discussion. I support the statement above by Mjroots and believe the situation requires intervention from an administrator. ColourSarge (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is about as lame as it gets. Seasoned edit-warrior MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (impressive block log) insists on including the text "50th A1" in the header to the section on Tornado, the 21st Century reproduction. He does this against clear consensus, and says that to have a section title that does not include this disputed claim is "POV" [2]. It's Mick against all comers, and I suggest that if he repeats this edit then he should be blocked for edit warring and being a tit. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "admin ... not able to address the issues for personal reasons" should really read, "admin who is unable to resolve disputes between himself and others in real life, and who has no business trying to sort out disputes between other editors on Wikipedia." And that's putting things very, very mildly considering recent events. If I phrased the situation accurately without sugar-coating it, I'd be given several WP:NPA warnings, even if I'm only talking about myself.

Getting back to the conduct of editors on this article, the edit warring is continuing with no attempt to resolve the situation. I'm starting to think that the article should be protected (even at The Wrong Version) until some consensus is made, but that may not be the best solution. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am at the end of my tether with this one - all I can do is appeal for calm, and this is falling on deaf ears with reverting left right and centre. It seems the discussion on the talk page is no longer about whether or not Tornado is the 50th or not, but into a "he said she said" kind of debate where users are stuck on their being "right" rather than what is best for the article. I urge an administrator to look at the debate and take some form of decisive action soon.ColourSarge (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy has totally screwed this one up. His definition of consensus appears to have been, go with the person who is reverting the least. He has totally ignored the talk page comments of others that went against the other parties, but they were not reverting so they don't appear to have been counted in his assesment, leaving me to be painted as the lone crazy here (discussion of the issue currently spans that entire article talk page, two mediation pages, an EA filing, a 3RR report, and two rail related project talk pages), which is annoying when both of the others do not even understand some wikipedia basics. Given his comments in here I have absolute no doubt that Guy did not even attampt to review those discussions to see who (outside editors) thought what. He has achieved what was wanted, that is that a minority of three editors (including one obvious meat puppet), wished to have their personal opinion of the subject ranked equal to sources. The crux of the issue: Not a single source has been provided that states that Tornado is not the 50th A1. The header stated: Tornado - 50th A1. Now, there was scope for discussion about RS etc, but this was not possible while two of the three parties were not willing to properly frame their arguments in policy, or even abide by the most basic standards such as WP:TALK. Most recently, Tony May dissappeared while I outlined what he had to do to justify his edits, and he merely reappeared to continue reverting, and in response to the last three outside opinions effectively replied I see what you're saying but I'm still right. All the more galling when he started the whole thing by gaming 3RR and reverting sourced additions as "vandalism reverts". Biscuittin went on to work on a totally different part of the article and somehow then got credit for being the most constructive recent participant. (To emphaises the problem, he has now stated he is leaving the dispute to move onto other articles as he has got what he wanted - his opinion counted equal with sources). And I am left hanging with Guy expecting me to prove I had consensus? Given the recent Cold Fusion case regarding NPOV, sources, and not letting editors add any old personal view into articles, this was a shocking act by Guy. To top it off he has basically continually insulted me in the process (while having the brass neck to criticise my block log). MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to MickMacNee, I'd like to say that this concerns all three of you. As I stated in the opening post, Biscuittin has shown some positive response to my comments. However, that does not mean that his past editing history of the article will be overlooked. This case is about all three of you. I brought it here so that people who are more experienced than I am, and better able to deal with the situation than I can, have a chance to review the history of the article and take whatever action is deemed necessary to enable us to build a better encyclopedia - which should be the reason we are on Wikipedia in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading the various pages, I can understand MickMacNee's frustration, although quite frankly none of the three named editors come out of this looking good. However, the article is now locked down, disruption can't continue, and I suggest we pragmatically draw a line under the nonsense that's been going on.

Regarding the article content, ANI isn't really the place for discussing that. However, the only way to go has to be to stick to what can be reliably sourced. If the apparent naming controversy can be sourced too, including it in the article might be one way to get both viewpoints across. I notice User:Morven has made some very sensible suggestions on the talk page, and I'd strongly encourage the article editors to engage with these. EyeSerene^talk 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's administrators should not escape criticism either because they acted so slowly. If the article had been locked at an earlier stage then much of the edit warring (in which I took no part) would have been prevented. Biscuittin (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now THIS is the biggest load I have seen shoveled in a long time. Admins cannot watch every page at the same time. Unless someone does an RFPP (and even that has a delay), do not blame admins for your edit-warring or other actions. ♪BMWΔ 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a request for mediation on 5 December 2008. At that stage there had already been a good deal of edit warring so I think the article should have been locked immediately. Wikipedia's inability to deal with disputes quickly is a serious handicap which could harm its reputation. Administrators should think about this and try to improve it, not just blame me for pointing it out. Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not blaming any administrator personally. I am just pointing out that Wikipedia's mediation process is not "fit for purpose" and needs to be overhauled. If something like this happens again I shall not seek mediation. I shall, instead, try to get the warring editors (on both sides) banned immediately. Biscuittin (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is an informal, good-faith based process, and not always suitable for resolving a hot edit-war. For future reference, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP, report on-going edit warring and three revert rule violations at WP:AN3, or there's always this noticeboard. No-one's blaming you for pointing out the disruption, but in the interests of fairness we're bound to look at everyone involved. I agree that this should have been stopped some time ago, but unless you bring it up in the right places it won't get the proper attention. I hope you don't mind me saying that you can't blame admins, or the system, for your oversight ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your points noted. Biscuittin (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee has, I think, shown exactly why his editing is a problem. It is pointless to assert that no sources have been provided which show that this is not the 50th in the class, since the claim that it is 50th in the class is plainly contentious and can be covered perfectly acceptably without implying its truth or falsehood by the simple and tested means of attribution. He wishes to assert the truth of what he believes and not recognise the validity of any dispute or the confusion which it might cause the reader.

The trust which built the loco intend it to be the 50th in the class, but in reality there is no active production of this class, it is a one-off reproduction just as the reproduction Tiger Moth aircraft are reproductions not part of the production run. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that enthusiasts intended it as the 50th in the class (probably noting in passing that they also say it is an evolution of the class to fix some of the original's problems, which rather undermines their point), but for Wikipedia to state that it is the 50th in the class opens the door to a load of issues. The infobox, for example, states that the Peppercorn A1 was manufactured 1948 - 1949 and 2008. Really? Is it really the case that there was a production run of one? Or is that a project not a production run? As far as I know, nothing survived from the original production run to the new one. Location, jigs, tooling, people, all were different. Even the drawings were amended, with major and minor changes to the design both to fix running problems and to comply with changed regulations. The debate about how true it is to type can go on for ever in the ouitside world, but for Wikipedia it's much better to step away from the assertions of steam fans (among which I include myself) and apply the usual Wikipedia fudge. It was a class of 49 locomotives built 1948-1949, with a new example intended as the 50th in class, built by enthusiasts in 2008. A truly remarkable achievement, but not in any way a resumption of production of this or any other main line steam locomotive, and it should not be represented as such. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Commonsense prevails. At at last, Wikipedia is asserting its right to be authoritative and factual and NOT be swayed by political correctness, marketting hype or just pandering to egotists. All hail JzG for his astute reading of this situation. Bhtpbank (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Death threat on Isopropyl alcohol

Resolved

Reported to the town police and report has been generated. Bstone (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User 74.179.30.67 made the following addition to Isopropyl alcohol "HI MR REVEALS 8TH GRADE IPS CLASS. I AM GOING TO KILL MR REVEAL BECAUSE HE IS A BIG FAT PAIN THE THE YOU KNOW WHAT, AND 7 DAYS TO DO SLUDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE! I AM GOING TO FLICK OFF THE HOMO THE NEXT TIME I SEE HIM". A threat..yes, credible...??. Silverchemist (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am looking into this. Bstone (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Threat, yes. Credible, probably not. Contact the school and have administration put the fear of God into whatever kid posted that. Probably will need a Checkuser to narrow down the specific computer used, if that's even technically possible. // roux   18:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am on the phone with one of their school admins, trying to find out if there is a teacher at the Indianapolis Public Schools by this name. The IP seems to be coming from Atlanta, GA, but google is not revealing IPS as a school system in Atlanta. Additional help would be useful. Bstone (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No teacher by the name of Reveals at the Indianapolis Public School system. Looking at Georgia. If you have leads please post them here. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the abuse email for the ISP and included a link to the diff and the IP it came from. I asked them to contact their authorities. Bstone (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The ISP is headquartered in Atlanta, but you are looking in the wrong place. Dnsstuff.com says that the actual user is in Frisco, Texas. --B (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule I don't take anything seriously that is written in CAPS LOCK, but please don't take my advice. Atlanta is Bellsouth HQ, so that means nothing. this link says Frisco, TX, and this one says it's asymmetric DSL. Plus they're probably not at school today. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am forwarding this to the Frisco, TX authorities. Bstone (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding any staff named "Reveal" but there are at least three student with that surname, and at least one of them should be graduated by now. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have spoken to the Frisco, TX police and spoke to Sgt Fortenberry. Case # 08133204 and they are looking into it. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I kind of missed this one, but I'm developing a form letter for these situations, and would always appreciate any help or suggestions you can make regarding it! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "IPS" in the threatener's message probably represents "Introductory Physical Science". Deor (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ what happened to just blocking trolling IPs? As in WP:DENY? If we're going to call the police for every kid trolling Wikipedia, they will probably need to shut down all their lesser law-enforcing activities. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

169.204.228.230

See the users history and block log, I looked back till 2007, oct. Only (mostly ordinary) vandalismn without exception. I think its time for very very long block. NobbiP (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked the IP for a year. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chubby Brother is Back

A little while The "Chubby Brother" was banned for making disruptive edits to List of Arthur episodes, and some page called The Mystery Chase Kids. And later we determined that "The Chubby Brother" was "Martha Runs The Store". Now i've found an IP who added spec to List of Arthur episodes, and inserted nonsense about The Mystery Chase Kids. I believe this IP is a sock-puppet of "The Chubby Brother". What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbutler (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's him, all right. And he's now kindly given us his map coordinates, as well; mighty nice of him, don't you think? Blocked. GJC 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IP proving a point

Can someone take a look at Landing at Kip's Bay and the recent edits for me? An IP is trying to prove a point by inserting information about how GW was a slaveholder and the British were key in ending slavery. Regardless of the truth, these edits are far beyond the scope of a small battle article like this and it's clear the editor is pushing a personal agenda. I have heavily edited this article in the past, so I feel I might have ownership issues if I don't step back and let you folks take a look. Tan | 39 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he's created an account to continue inserting his agenda into the article. VX!^~~~ 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a sock puppet, but this IP needs to be blocked. Not only is he POV pushing, but he has violated WP:3RR (see here, here, here, and here). I am currently at three reverts and will go no farther; I leave it up to you... VX!^~~~ 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I left a note on his talk page recommending that the dispute be taken to the talk page. I emphasized that the 3RR was taken seriously here on WP and that another violation would result in a block. Hopefully he will be dissuaded and decide to discuss his proposed changes on the discussion page. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sockofadix is User:Fadix evading one year block.

Resolved

 – blocked

By socks own admission. I've reverted its edits. Someone should block it. By both the sock's comments and Fadix's own comments it wants to be blocked "undefinitely" rather than for a year. So someone should probably just give it what it wants. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How cunning. Blocked. --fvw* 03:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IP page-blank vandalism at Talk:California University of Pennsylvania

I am not quite sure if this is appropriate to report to WP:SSP or right to WP:AIV for all of them on this one. A series of IPs — all from Pittsburgh — are continuously engaging in page-blank vandalism on the talk page of California University of Pennsylvania (including calling my vandalism revert vandalism in itself), of which I have just requested semi-protection over at WP:RFPP. The IPs be

• 71.240.61.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.240.71.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.20.124.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

in order from earliest to latest. They are all very likely to be the same person doing the same page-blanking. I would say that blocks may be necessary. I report this here since I'm not sure what to do with a person using multiple IPs without a registered user involved in any of it. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion they're blanking appears to be about 6 months old. Maybe simply archiving it would satisfy them. --Onorem♠Dil 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The RFPP was declined due to lack of recent vandalism (despite the last one being two hours ago). MuZemike (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of any sort is not given based on when the last edit was. It is done when there is an acute period of severe vandalism. After I took a look at the history, even I won't semi-protect it. —kurykh 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the word "enough" should have been italicized rather than "recent." Or both. Maybe I didn't quite understand what was meant by "lack of recent disruptive activity." Apologies if I had not. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I looked at it and threw it out, it seems to be an instance of non-notable information being inserted by a full wealth of SPAs that just managed to outtalk and wear down other editors who had to fear edit warring. The talk page had a poll on it, for crying out loud. If I'm in error, feel free to revert me. Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill

Well.. To start off, this user has basically, almost only contributed to the article Troy Davis case, in which he or she has removed large amounts of information, changed things to slant in regards to their POV, and added content in regards to their POV. Did I mention the removed content was sourced?

To clarify, I know that WP:SSP is ---> that way.

Two editors to my knowledge believe that this user is a sockpuppet, I have asked for evidence regarding this sockpuppetry claim, but I have so far gotten no response.

The other user involved is Jatkins. And for ease of evidence gathering, and ability to contact, SelfEvidentTruths's user link.

Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe this user is a sockpuppet because he has been vandalizing the Troy Davis case by re-introducing POV-words and phrases that existed in the article before I rewrote the article in an accurate, NPOV-compliant manner, and expanded the article to reflect all that has been going on in this case. In other words, it's a person who was originally behind some of the biased, POV-statements that existed in the article, and then, when the article was cleaned-up and edited and rewritten, he assumed a new identity (with the intent to hide behind sockpuppets), User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill, and reinserted the same phases and statements. He has no other contributions under this name, and it seems this username was invented to delete what other editors have written, and reinsert unsourced, biased statements that he originally wrote in the article (under a different name). User:SelfEvidentTruths ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, he has reinserted the words "multiple corroborating eyewitnesses" and reinserted that Davis was convicted "on physical evidence" - these are unsourced claims, contradictory to many neutral and legal sources that covered this case (Amnesty Report, Time Magazine report, FBI Director's article, etc.). Because these specific claims (which violate WP policy) existed in the original article, and because he has been reinserting them, time and again, it is highly suspicious, and it seems he created new accounts in order to vandalize the article. User:SelfEvidentTruths ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis, the convicted copkiller who unfortunately is the presently the focus of the article at the expense of the memory of the hero he allegedly smilingly and with deliberation assassinated, is identified [in sources supplied http://www.sundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2441/Should-Troy-Davis-be-executed.aspx]. Bullets and shells from the shooting of Cooper (who identified Davis, solely, as his assailant) earlier the same day matching and/or not being distinguishable by type from bullets and shells at the murder of Officer MacPhail constitute physical evidence. By all means live in denial about, just don't represent the contrary on behalf of all of us to the public. There were multiple corroborating witnesses at the stage of the police investigation, at trial, and even now. At all occasions, the witnesses that resist definitively fingering Sylvester Coles corroborate those who explicitly finger Davis, in the same fashion that those who finger neither but allege the assailant of Young to be the murderer corroborate those who only finger Davis as Young's assailant. That all being understood and acknowledged as my as my final comment on this distraction, you are invited now to give it up.HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(the above statement has been refactored to remove probable WP:BLP violations SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I guess this answer to the question I asked on HOM's talk page could be taken as more or less worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... single purpose account, nothing but POV-pushing and editorializing, labeling of fair statements on his talk page as "trolling", behavior echoing a similarly-named user... and threatening words at the checkuser request page. So why are you all still messing with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on his subsequent edits to Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein‎ this is (yet another) User:DavidYork71 sock puppet. David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One point of crossover is the Islam and children article, which York did some work on, and this current apparent-sock merely touched upon, but that's a giveaway as it seems totally out of context of this guy's current rant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I blocked User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill for block evasion? This seems to sail through the quack test with flying colours. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr has done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I aggree this is most probably DY. I filled a RFCU to see if there are any sleepers. I expect there are (I triggered an autoblock). -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Markallenmacphail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains unblocked. He had just 2 edits in October, to the Troy Davis article. The dilemma now is what to do about edits he made in his 4 days here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Paranoia

Well, either I'm just paranoid, or Tuzlar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a brand-new sock. The only edit so far is in defense of the now-blocked sockpuppet, HonourOfficerMcPhaill.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Roughly the same thing as above, Ovalscene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created an account not but minutes ago, and the only contribution is to revert an article(yes I know it wasn't specifically a revert) back to a version edited by the sockpuppet this entire section is about, (re: HonourOfficerMcPhaill).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And now 62.99.163.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who reverts to the sockpuppet's version, and takes the side of the vandal on the talk page. I'm going to request an IP check.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All three of these users have been  Confirmed by a checkuser as in relation to each other. The IP has been blocked for one year as an open proxy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino, part #3

Hi all, let me draw your attention to the Ragusino problem once more. Namely, despite being indefinitely blocked after two reports, he simply continues to edit articles and engage in revert-wars with several users on Ragusa-related articles. (This has been going on for weeks.) His IPs usually start with 190. and 200. and can be noted from the history pages of affected articles, most of which have become completely unstable due to his vandalism and revert-warring. The articles are in desperate need of long-term semi-protection. These include:

• House of Bunić/Bona
  • Deleted (expired prod)
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
  • Semi-protected
• House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi
  • Protection declined; insufficient disruption as yet
• House of Gundulić/Gondola
  • Already done
• House of Božidarević/Bosdari
  • Semi-protected
• House of Natali
  • Semi-protected
• Ivan Gundulić
  • Already done

His activities are also almost certainly going to spread to the following articles when the above are protected:

• House of Bondić/Bonda
• House of Kaboga/Caboga
• House of Gučetić/Gozze
• House of Gradić
• House of Menčetić/Menze
• House of Lukarić/Lucari
• House of Pucić
• House of Saraka/Saraca
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
• House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna
• House of Restić/Reesti
• House of Zlatarić/Slatarich

I know its probably a relatively lengthy task, but according to discussions on previous reports he can't be banned, and is more than likely to continue his activities for weeks (and even months). Furthermore, these articles are obscure and are almost never edited by IP users: no damage will be done by semi-protecting them. Quite frankly, I can't imagine any other way to stabilize these articles and put an end to his editing :( Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume range blocks won't work for various reasons? --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The range appears to be too big, according to admin comments in parts #1 and #2 of the saga... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed no-one has dealt with this yet :P I've been through the first list and replied under each entry. For the second list, we can't really protect pre-emptively (frustrating though that is!). If these articles start to suffer too, please re-report (or drop a note on my talk-page, if you prefer). Regards, EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP?

After filing a WP:SSP, I looked to see what the likely backlog is. There are 75 open cases listed, the oldest one going back over a month. I stopped counting unaddressed cases after 20. When I submit evidence to ANI, I'm told to use SSP. An open-ended question, hopefully to prod someone. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I try to get to at least one or two every few days, but I start at the top of the list. There are so many inactive or outdated cases at SSP. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I share your frustration. What I normally do is locate an admin that has processed a sockpuppet report about the user before, and notify that admin of the report. Since they are familiar with the case, it usually gets handled pretty quickly. If that fails, I just beg an admin that I have a good working relationship with to process it. What's frustrating is that the report rate really isn't very high. If a three admins just processed three reports a day, that backlog would be go away and not come back. It hasn't got anywhere near the traffic of RFPP or AIV.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm just not sure if I have a good working relationship with seasoned admins. Either that, or I'm internalizing that I burned my bridges when I had a meltdown a few months ago... Well, I'll just wait and see. If the user I've reported gets too unruly, I'll just post it here and hope for the best. At the moment, it's fairly easy easy to contain, more like a splinter under your fingernails. Although, sometimes it seems like a CU in conjunction with SSP helps, but I might be just woolgathering on that. Sorry for my rambling :) Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP2? D.M.N. (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:SSP2 is the answer to these issues. FT2 along with myself had been working on this, but now in turn need the communities help in making the changes and enacting the merger. (Also see here). Anyone interested in helping with the merger can say so I on the WT:RFCU thread, or send me a email and I would be happy to delegate out some tasks. Tiptoety ^talk 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I always knew I should request Checkuser :-) ♪BMWΔ 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Just wondering what would be the suggested course of action. The documentation at Template:Coor_title_d/doc was deleted by Pigsonthewing without much explanation ("emphasise deprecation") while the page itself and the template is kept.

After I restored it with an explicit edit summary, he removed it once more. I was wondering if I should just let him delete my contributions or shall I restore it once more? -- User:Docu

You could always try door number 3 - talking to him about it. I assume his reasoning is something like this: if the template is deprecated and should be replaced by {{coord}} wherever it's used, why do you need instructions on how to use it? So, in this case I think Potw's edit was probably correct, although I am firmly of the school of thought that says civil discussion should not take place through the edit summaries of reverts, even if THEY'RE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you should of discussed it with him first. That said I also agree with his actions; the template is deprecated, so why do we need instructions on how to use it? VX!^~~~ 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this is another thread on WP:DRAMA regarding Docu and Pigsonthewing clashing over coordinate templates, I assume there will be a sub-thread about Docu's continuing refusal to abide by the community norm of putting a userspace link in his signature in a few minutes ? I'm beginning to think atomic clocks could be set more accurately by tuning to these things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a good reason for making it inconvenient for other users to visit Docu's userpage, talk page, and contribs. I just don't know what it is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. John Reaves 05:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't want company. His doorstep has a "NOT WELCOME" mat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, has this been discussed before? I think it has. Feels disruptive to me. John Reaves 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has. It should be somewhere in the black hole of the ANI archives. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Look under the heading of "edit war veterans". Bhtpbank (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A collection of socks, revisited

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. TN‑X-Man 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I reported the results of a RfCU here, which resulted in a number of socks being indef blocked. A new user has popped up, revering changes made by the blocking admin to some of the socks' user pages - here and here (their other edits seem to be in areas favoured by my socky friend). I suspect User:Closeupon is the latest incarnation of my quacking aquaintance. Could someone take a look?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made to the talkpages, but I don't have the shiny red button so someone else will need to block this enormous duck. // roux   23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it's a sockpuppet; still, it wouldn't hurt to do a CU? VX!^~~~ 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sadly, it's probably worth doing because past history suggests the next few days will see more socks appearing daily. Thanks for your advice and help, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely that if one appeared, more will follow. VX!^~~~ 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has indef blocked User:Closeupon. For future reference, can I mark this as resolved, or should a non-involved party do the honours? Cheers, and thanks to Jayron32 for wielding the big red button, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've marked it resolved, but I wouldn't think there would be a problem with you doing it in the future, as you were the original poster and your concern was addressed. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:71.102.2.128 and the Church of the SubGenius

The user made a non-good faith comment on the article's talk page. I reverted one of the the user's edits as part of RC patrol. User told me it was none of my business reverting it. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit here[3] is a gripe, not an accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to make peace on that talk page all afternoon. A well meaning editor slapped a notability tag on an obviously notable but poorly cited article about a semi-serious parody religion. The editors there, largely devotees and newbies who do not fully understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, were startled and alarmed. They quickly came up with some references, then criticized the editor for applying a notability tag without doing his/her homework first. The editor defended the tag and told them it was their duty not his/hers to establish notability and they should spend their energies improving the article instead of lashing out. Both sides have been scolding each other ever since. Other than the taunt the comment looks spot on. In fact both sides are right in my opinion. The notability tag was completely according to correct procedure, but it could have been handled with a lot more patience and understanding. It's all moot now that notability is established, so both parties flogging each other over how they should have handled it will not accomplish anything. A little warm-and-fuzzy goodwill on either side would quickly fix things and they could all be editing buddies. This is a perfect application for WP:TEA.

Update: Cirt did block the IPer for his/her actions. Willking1979 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another update: The IPer continues the gripes on his/her user talk page, despite the fact that the user is blocked. Willking1979 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. I think somebody bit the newbie and he's trying to bite back. IMO an illustration of why escalating some things makes them worse. If someone would patiently and respectfully explain things it would probably do more to diffuse the situation and convince the IP that we're all just random volunteers typing things into computers rather than some nefarious inept bureaucracy. Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lindale13

Lindale13 (talk · contribs)

What do you ppl think the very strange contribs of Lindale13 (talk · contribs) are all about? No, I have not contacted the user. Thanks. -- Y not? 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow...around 300 edits...all but 4 to userspace...--Smashville^talk 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

S/he seems to be mirroring userpages and awards pages. WTF? // roux   18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed...(see below for examples)--Smashville^talk 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Lindale13/Sandbox/stuff/Sandbox/User115 text vs. User:Scartol
• User:Lindale13/Sandbox/stuff/Sandbox/User114 text vs. User:Dineshkannambadi
• User:Lindale13/Sandbox/stuff/Sandbox/User107 text vs. User:Ihcoyc

I'm thinking we speedy delete them all as GFDL violations? --Smashville^talk 19:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You might as well humor yourself by asking first. Look almost like a bot copying and pasting code. Someone working on human-machine interactions might be using this somehow. I'll shoot a note. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a student researcher collecting profiles for analysis in an experiment. I wasn't aware of the GFDL policy and have now placed the pages offline. I've gone ahead and deleted the pages myself and apologize for any paranoia. ~ lindale13 (talk)

Ccd03003 (talk · contribs)

Can someone take a look at the above user? I have RL-issues to deal with atm, sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked him as spam-only (it was taken to AIV). --Smashville^talk 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Wikipedia since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. [4] He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - user has been disruptive since day 1. Has refused to accept that sources are valid, has disrupted both here and off-wiki, and as an interesting data point claimed off-wiki that he works for Mr O'Reilly. Yes, off-wiki belongs off-wiki for the most part, but admitting to that level of COI is worth noting. // roux   17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Ignoring his politics, his behavior to this point has been unacceptable. He should be banned from editing all articles related to American politics or political or editorial figures, broadly contrued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Our patience with single-issue crusaders who refuse to accept consensus should eventually run out. We should welcome their participation if they will join in reasonable discussion, but I think he has used that up that chance already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  Consensus is not set in stone, and if it's in conflict with policy - the consensus of the community - then local consensus must give. Projecting your personal frustration with their numbers onto a single user doesn't seem fair, btw. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• An alternative suggestion How about encouraging Fru23 to actually edit the articles in question, adding appropriate criticism based on reliable sources? So far all his activities seems to be on the talk pages. This low level of activity would not seem to be enough to justify a topic ban on all American politics. Fred Talk 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Investigation of the matter, using the checkuser tool, reveals that Fru23 is one of a family of socks who habitually make tendentious edits from a point of view similar to that of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly regarding controversial contemporary political issues. The edits are made by accounts from two ips not used by legitimate editors 151.188.105.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 72.192.216.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My recommendation is to indefinitely block those ips and the accounts Fru23, KingsOfHearts, and Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • • Continuing to study him as at this discussion. Fred Talk 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you didn't look far enough. His two blocks were due to his form of "editing", which was to delete stuff he didn't agree with, against consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I prefer a regular block for disruptive editing, all he did was disrupt these pages since he started editing a month ago and no other contributions. It's clear he's not wanted here. I'll do the block if there are no objections. Secret ^account 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • • Obviously I object, but would be quite willing to block if he is actually unable or unwilling to edit responsibly. Fred Talk 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • A topic ban would effectively be an overall wikipedia ban, since this is apparently the only topic he's interested in. A week-long block might send the proper message, then see if he changes his approach, or if he simply abandons wikipedia, as belligerent users sometimes do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor certainly has a point of view of his own, as do most editors. His is apparently quite different from mine, but that is not grounds for a ban. He has committed some excesses editing in support of that point of view, and has had a 24 hour and a 72 hour block as a result. He has not been a mere vandal or troll, and his stated opposition to "POV pushing" on Nov 12 on his user page is in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, despite seeming POV pushing in some of his edits. Rather than a ban against editing some overly broad unlisted set of topics, I suggest that the next block, should it be necessary, be extended to 1 week, as part of progressive discipline. Maybe he will figure out that collaborative editing is the way we do things here rather than unilateral actions, and will learn to edit collaboratively and productively with less drama. Sometimes it takes a person a while to figure out that this is an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, what he said [5] was "I HATE POV PUSHERS", not "POV pushing". He regards US as POV-pushers. In short, he hates US. Nothing personal, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• No comment Fru23 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not going to work. We'll have to see decent editing and talk page discussion. You say there is a "double standard", give some examples. Fred Talk 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    Media matters on Bill OReilly and newsbusters on al franken/Olberman, when I proposed the use of newsbuster as a source on the those articles it was shot down for the same reasons I stated on bills article for the removal of mediamatters. WP:own wp:tagteamFru23 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I was on the fence on this one, but Fru23's comment above seems to validate everyone's concerns about him and his ability to edit constructively. Dayewalker (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per "no comment". Clearly he's disrupting to make a point and doesn't want to edit constructively. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Fred Bauder. Insufficient demonstration of disruption to merit a topic ban, although one might be down the road if current tendencies continue. Two short blocks and one rejected AFD are a bit lightweight as grounds for topic banning. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Switching to neutral per sock evidence. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Support at minimum, per checkuser. Durova^Charge! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Ramsquire and Baseball bugs canvased in the afd. Stop accusing me of attacking others editors unless you are willing to provide a link to the incident. Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors.Fru23 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop accusing other editors of canvassing unless you are willing to provide links to the incidents. // roux   22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramsquire#O.27Reilly_and_Fru23 Plus Ramsquire told 1 or 2 as well. Fru23 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

      • Uh, that's not canvassing. Letting a user who was involved in a particular situation know that the situation has re-started is not canvassing. Please (re)read WP:CANVASS. // roux   23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

        • Thanks for explaining that. I told Arzel, Jimintheatl, and Noian, because we have been in extensive discussion about that article. Also please note that Arzel and Jim are usually on completely opposite sides of most issues, so it's clear I was not trying to influence the result per WP:CANVASS. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

          • Likewise, I was notifying 3 users who had been in discussion with Fru23 recently and I feared he was trying to slip something past them. I'll admit my wording was a little chippy. I consulted with an admin on the accusation of canvassing, and he basically laughed about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  Why is IP 72.192.216.42 making a comment [6], then the same comment being immediately after signed by Fru23? This is the infamous "poor man's check user" which happens when you get logged out. The edit history of 72.192.216.42 [7], now apparently revealed to be Fru23, gives new dimensions to this proposal. Edison (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That IP address 72.192.216.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does indeed afford a broader look at Fru23's approach to things here. WHOIS says Atlanta, GA, which puts it in the realm of the banned User:Tecmobowl, although I think that's a coincidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "He is not wanted here" is no valid reason for a topic ban. It is rather a sign that something is amiss with the motivation of the users that don't want him. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That's not the reason. Continued disruption and WP:POINTy edits are the issue. // roux   22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  It is a dynamic IP, it is the main reason I created this account, I said this when I first started editing. I am not responsible for any edits made before nov 16, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Possible_COI.3F unless you want to ban me for something I have no control over, don't use that against me. Fru23 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Make that Nov 11 [8] which was his first edit under Fru23 and was to the O'Reilly criticism article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • A defiant tone is unlikely to earn the community's trust, though. Per WP:BAN it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters in this discussion. So would you be willing to agree that perhaps you could become more familiar with site standards and work toward a more collaborative approach? Durova^Charge! 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• What Fred said. This user needs a mentor not a topic ban, at least to start with. Patient explanation of policy may fix the problem. And if it doesn't, well, we can fix that when it becomes apparent. Let's have a volunteer to convey some WP:BLP clue. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because I am clearly a vandal that GOES LOLOLOLLULZ LULZ, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supershit_666&diff=prev&oldid=228204437 Fru23 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification I never meant to imply a request for a permanent topic ban. I was thinking a temporary topic ban may allow Fru the opportunity to get a better idea of how to work collaboratively, while working on articles he is not as emotionally involved in. My major problem with him, is his refusal to actually discuss what is bothering him specifically. He makes claims that "the source does not exist" when it does, or "the source does not say that" when a quick review makes it obvious he did not read the source. In sum, I do not support a permanent ban of any kind against Fru yet. However, I do think he should show some ability to work here in other articles to stop his disruption on the more contentious articles. I apologize for not being as clear in my initial request. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• • BOLP Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors. I know a lot about the rules of wikiepdia bolp,coatrack, and npov. I admit that part of my recent contributions to the TALK Pages of olberman and Al my have been to make a WP:POINT. Fru23 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I once heard of an ocean liner that was so large it ran aground on two different beaches at the same time. It was double stranded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - I personally see absolutely no constructive contributions from this editor, and only seems like he's here to service an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia in the process. I would endorse putting all of his editing privileges on probation pending constructive contribution elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have no interest in knowing, or debating, anyone's personal political beliefs. This is not why we are here, and simple decorum demands we leave such topics out of Wikipedia. However, when a user makes edits in such a manner that there political views become not only obvious but problematic, then some action has to be taken. Fru23 does not seem to understand why we are here, and shows no sign of wanting to improve as an editor. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

• OK, so at the risk of turning this into WP:SSP:
  • We've established (and he's admitted) that 72.192.216.42 was Fru23 at one time.
  • Looking at Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42, we see this "dynamic" IP's second edit, in July, was to Cesar Millan. It was a revert to a previous version by....
  • Special:Contributions/KingsOfHearts. Looking at the edit summaries of KingsOfHearts' September edits, it's clear that all the "LOL your sources suck" edits from the IP this summer and early fall were the same person as KingsOfHearts.
  • Looking at the articles KingsOfHearts has edited, we see that there's an amazing overlap with...
  • Special:Contributions/Fru23.
  • Quack.

I think the only question now is, are Fru23 and KingsOfHearts the same POV pushing vandal who should be indef blocked, or are they friends who have been socking on Bill O'Reilly and other conservative articles, and should be blocked? Luckily, per WP:SOCK, it really doesn't matter. Don't subject ban, Block indef.. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's impressive detective work. It does seem like we have sock/meat puppetry going on here, and that would call for a block. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As Gordon Ramsay would say: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear." Permablock, yes. // roux   01:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Check your facts, KingsofHearts has been editing for a year, longer than the ip which supports my claim that it is dynamic, I started editing on the ip but stopped after noticing its past contributions some which were on BILL OREILLY which is why I went there in the first place, I said all of this about a month ago. Barneca, do some research on my past edits before accusing me of conservative pov pushing so you won't look like such a .

So far I have edited the follow articles.

• Criticism of bill oreilly Removing contentious nonnotable material
• Michael Moore controversies Removing contentious nonnotable material sourced by only newsbusters or national review
• Media Matters for America Removing Quotations from every other word in a section
• Osama Bin Laden Removing terrorist accusations from the opening turned into a big argument that I avoided, in the end my edit stayed in place.
• Fred Phelps Removing a list of God hates slogans from the opening.
• Todd Davis Removing his social security number from the page
• Life lock Removing Todd Davis social security number from the page
• Jersey girls Changing 9/11 terrorist attacks to 9/11 attacks
• Muhammad Rewording picture info on the page to say "an artist's depiction of Muhammad doing something" instead of just say Muhammad doing something.

The only edits of mine that could be even remotely seen as conservative pov pushing is some to Bills. If anything most of my edits seem to be pushing a progressive/liberal agenda. Fru23 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After Looking through again I have not edited ANY page that kingofhearts has edited. Croctotheface stop praising him for this and what would I be blocked for? Fru23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also recommend a comparison to Wikiport (talk · contribs), another short lived POV pusher who showed up to complain about sources[9] on the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly articles (also note the reference to Olbermann). My guess? Fru23 is yet another sock of the same disruptive user who has been showing up on the FNC related talk pages for a very long time. The quacking is getting louder. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::: Fru23 should NOT be lblocked right off the bat. quite rnakly, the phony "checkuser" induction reaosning used above seems dody; while its certainly possible that Fru23 is the same person as the origial vandal, the fact of tha matter is that there is a possibility that his issues/conflicts are likely to be unrelated and thus we should assess Fru23 as Fru23 and not as twhoiever he might have been in another increasquitian. I recommend the WP:MENTOR option and iwouldnt mind taking on that role is no one else has the time/icnliantion. Smith Jones (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)I think I hear quacking as well--but just to eliminate any doubt, a Checkuser is in order. But in the meantime, endorse topic ban, pending acceptance of mentorship Blueboy96 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) (ecX3) i concur witht he above, asa reatlional conpromise. Again, a topic-ban temporary might be in order until i can hamer out a deal with Fru32 to manage contentiaos article editoring. Smith Jones (talk)

I just listed every page I have edited, NONE are the same as kingsofhearts, plus only one can be even remotely considered conservative, most are liberal. Please one of the people going OMG SOCK!!1! respond to this. Its is entirely possible that we at one point had the same ip that does not mean we are the same person. Even if we were that is not a warrant a ban or even a block, wikipedia has no rule against having more than 1 account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Fru23 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23 is obviosuly not a sock, so lets dropt his line of ringworm snot right now please and ge back to the original content conflictSmith Jones (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"increasquitian" and "dropt his line of ringworm snot"--Smith Jones, WP would be a much less-cromulent place without you. (More comprehensible, perhaps, but definitely less-cromulent.) You should write poetry in your spare time. :) GJC 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I'm going treasure being accused of speaking "ringworm snot" for quite a while. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Let's go ahead with checkuser. Durova^Charge! 01:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive ... Blueboy96 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboy, for picking up the ball and running with it. I'd planned to file a checkuser request after Fru23 denied it, but I was pulled away from the computer rather abruptly. I'll go there now to see if there's anything I can add. --barneca (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I mentioned my ip had past bad faith edits a month ago, it is why I said I made the account, anyway the Kingsofhearts has edited none of the pages I did.Fru23 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry to stir up contentiousness most assuredly IS against the rules, regardless of their physical proximity, and I remember very well at least one very contentious case where both of them were banned despite checkuser showing no relationship at all. One tidbit I find interesting is his edit on Muhammad, which seems off track from his usual editing. However, it is on my watchlist (which is up to 2,500 items now - yikes) and I had edited it recently, so he might have been looking at my recent edits and decided to make a small edit just to give the false appearance of some diversity. I could be wrong about that, though. However, it would be interesting to see if a checkuser tied these various guys together, or if its coincidental. A look at the history of Fru23, the IP, and KingsOfHearts does seem to bear out his argument that the common articles are only or primarily on the IP, not on the named users alone, indicating that they are sharing the IP somehow. The bizarre use of caps is fairly common to Kings and the IP, but rather less often for Fru23. It might also be interesting to put a hard block on that IP 72.192.216.42 and see what the fallout is, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They have the same passwords, they are indeed socks. Lobocf (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — Lobocf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Lobocf" might be Serbian for "troll". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that this diff and this one both use Fru23's idiosyncratic use of 'BOLP' instead of 'BLP', which I haven't ever seen used by anyone else. // roux   03:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • bolp = biography of living persons. its ia perfect valid annunciation of the term WP:BOLP that I personaly use every often day when relevent as it means the same thing and is actualy more clearly the n the more inaccurate WP:BLP which could mean anything since it has no palindromatic information attached to the link. Smith Jones (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Whether or not it's 'accurate' is a matter of opinion. The use of BOLP instead of BLP is, in my experience, completely idiosyncratic to Fru23. Also, you might want to look up palindrome. // roux   03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I wacknowldged you but the point i am trying to say that is WP:BOLP is an existing redirect, which eans that it must hav ebeen used by SOMEONE before fru23. while i admit its (unfortunately) rare but that doesnt mean that Fru23 is somekind of sockpuppet mastermind. lets wait for the checkuser to tell us who is a sockpoppet of whom and deal with the matter of Fru23s behavior pthus far irrespecitve of the nature of his alleged sockpuppets if there are any which whom I am in seriously doubt-mode. Smith Jones (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • I "wacknowledge" that it doesn't prove sockpuppetry. It's just a little piece in a puzzle. Checkuser would likely tell us for sure, one way or the other. But that oddity jumped out at me when I was looking at Fru23's contrib list. Similarities in style are worth looking at when sockpuppetry is suspected, even though they may be coincidental. For what it's worth, the alternate WP:BOLP was created nearly 2 years ago: [10] whose span on wikipedia was a grand total of 20 minutes, in which he (or it) created a number of variations on WP:BLP and other wikipedia abbreviations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

again, i agre wthat there is probalb ysomething fishiny about these two accounts, but to me tocontineu arguing here is to have WP:ANI usurp the role of WP:sSP THERE Is alwready a checkuser request underway re: this user and it makesmore sense to do the sockpuppet investigations via WP:SSP and dea l with the mentorship/conflict resolution/etc elsevhere. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that you need a new keyboard? New Monitor? My typing is often lysdexic, but I bow to the master. Edison (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what this is supposed to prove. Even if you decide to say I am a sock I have never crossed paths with kingofhearts, so I can't be blocked for that. See legitimate uses of sockpuppets. Fru23 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What a positive result would show is a history of seven recent blocks instead of only two. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Which may or may not be the reason he was trying to get at least one of his blocks deleted from the log: [11] and [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(OT) I'm confused that User:KingsOfHearts even exists. Care to comment at WT:U#How confused do I have to be? Shenme (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out the remarkable coincidence that while others have mentioned that Fru claimed on IRC that he works for O'Reilly, KingOfHearts claims in this edit summary that he personally took this picture of O'Reilly during taping of the O'Reilly factor. Something he would obviously be in no position to do unless he (yes, you guessed it) works for O'Reilly. It's getting a little hard to hear in here, what with all the quacking. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A Foxy sock drawer

Checkuser on Fru23 returns not only KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but a few others including Xrxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See this edit. Fred Talk 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

distinctive edit by KingsOfHearts Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Similar edit by 72.192.216.42. Fred Talk 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This family of editors, particularly Fru23, KingsOfHearts and the ip, use the same half dozen identically configured computers, as one might find in an office. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Welly welly welly welly welly welly well! A real-life version of Fox in Socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They also edited from a second ip which has been blocked for 6 months as a "schoolblock". Fred Talk 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here an edit from the ip reverts to the version favored by Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you list all the socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts? Time to close this on-wiki puppet show. Blueboy96 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23, KingsOfHEarts and Xrxty all blocked indef, while 72.192.216.42 has been blocked 48 hours. This show is over. Blueboy96 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There. Not a single grain of evidence of abuse, but who cares. Opposition to the prevailing pov must be removed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Around 10 blocks for disruption. Several grains' worth there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought

I've been trying to come up with a term to describe what seems to be an increasing phenomenon - a user who brings a complaint here only to end up getting blocked himself once others investigate. Sometimes they make a simple mistake, such as inadvertently tipping off editors, as with Fru23 managing to tie himself up with that IP, which opened the lid on the case. Other times they simply don't see the forest for the trees. At the risk of falling into the "recentism" trap, I'm thinking a good term would be "Plaxicoed". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Happens all the time, Bugs. Ever since I first became a sysop I've noticed it. That's a typical arc for disruptive users. Probably better not to name it after a particular person, because if the matter becomes too personal for them they're apt to stick around and become an even bigger problem. See User_talk:BooyakaDell#Sockpuppet, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196, and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. Durova^Charge! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Another thought is the Homer Simpson response to when he messes up: "D'oh!" In The Hunt for Red October, the enemy ship managed to torpedo itself. Maybe "wikipedo". Or "wikipe-D'oh!"

Hey, by the way, we now know what the deal is with those guys, as they "retired" within 4 minutes of each other: [13] and [14] They're brothers! Shazam! This is a twist on the usual "my evil twin brother did it", the dilemma being it's hard to figure out which one was the evil twin. Ironically, KingsOfHearts' talk page initially said, "I will try my best to help wikipedia. Any suggestions?" Today, he helped wikipedia.

That still leaves Xrxty. That must be the "evil cousin" who's out of town. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One semi-serious question: KingsOfHearts had uploaded a photo of O'Reilly that he took on-set. Would it be presumptuous to license-tag it as PD-self, since he says he took the photo only he didn't seem to get that it needs to say PD-self? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can be presumed he meant PD-self, but the question above suggests a possibility that it's not- if FRU did once work for O'Reilly and he took the picture in the line of work, the image might well be a work product, and thus ownership would go to O'Reilly's production company. On the other hand, if KOH wasn't an employee, and just happened to be on the set with a camera, it's a different story. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I had best leave it alone, then. I see that Blaxthos has un-deleted the two talk pages, since the "retired" stuff is a lie - it's kind of like Larry Miller's pub-crawl joke, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." So the next question is, where does one request page protection? I know there's a page for that somewhere, but I've never used it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

==>WP:RFPP Deor (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Blaxthos, in fact, already has it covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

However, this is evidence you are simply reverting to old habits. This edit that you made does not accord with the content of the source cited. Why don't you quit making edits like that for a while and maybe we can address the questions you raise. There is a serious question as to whether blogs are appropriate sources. Fred Talk 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold the phone

Here's a brand new redlink jumping straight into this debate. Imagine that. [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Criminy... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but everything's OK, he says he's not a sock of Fru23. He just happened to jump into this debate, as a brand new user. Must be a miracle of some kind or other. P.S. I posted a note on the checkuser's page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an attempt to make a WP:POINT about AGF, considering this comment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reported the above user, who is obviously a sock and promises to continue his predecessors' disruption, to the checkuser and also to AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, though honestly I don't think AIV will do anything as this sort of gaming/socking doesn't really qualify as vandalism (see here). Also, I wonder what the CU will turn up, considering both IPs that they're known to have used in the original CU case were blocked at the time of account creation. I wouldn't rule out going over to a coffee shop or some such, but I doubt a CU would be able to determine anything from this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Quoth the ravenduck: neverquackermore. "I am not a sock of X" is kind of proof of being a sock of X, all other things taken into consideration. // roux   20:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured posting to AIV wouldn't hurt, especially in light of his threat to continue his predecessors' disruption. BlueBoy is preparing another CU case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, the user doesn't seem to be trying at all to hide his tracks, so it should be very easy to spot future puppets. I actually didn't realize this had gone this far up until stumbling upon this page earlier today. It's really quite something. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets often assume the collective editorship here is as stupid naive as they turn out to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, would you consider a refactor there? I know this is frustrating but it's better to take the high road. Durova^Charge! 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I do not understand what flawed logic you are using. I am neither disruptive or a sock. JcLiner (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are actually a legitimate sock, prove it. Contact someone on Arbcom and tell them in strict confidence who you really are--with proof, naturally. They can then convey that you are indeed the legitimate alternate of another account. Or just wait for the CU request to be processed. I don't think anyone here is in any doubt of what those results will be. // roux   21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's been filed. I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block based on behavioral evidence. I don't think we need to wait for the checkuser results. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please block me now so if the results come back negitive you will look like an idiot. I expect an apoligy and for everyone to remove all acusations against me when this is disproven. JcLiner (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results came back as "possible." Similarities noted by Fred, coupled with JcLiner's behavior, were enough for me to indefblock. (sigh) I have a feeling we're going to end up playing whack-a-mole with this one for awhile. Blueboy96 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he owes you the "apoligy". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He has graciously supplied us with his current IP 64.72.89.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is now in the wikilawyering stage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys are so obvious. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, so was Mr. Fox 'n Socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the IP an extra day off (for a block of two days) and disabled user talk page editing. If he wants to contest the block, he can use one of his accounts. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've invited him to email me and given directions for how to do so. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The banned User:Tecmobowl also tried to get the checkuser to tell him how he identified him when he used socks. As if. Fred gives a hint of it though - it seems like the PC itself can be identified through some kind of signature, the technology of which is beyond me. It's kind of scary from the Big Brother standpoint, but it's also necessary in the hit-and-run world of the internet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's most likely from information that your web browser transmits to a server whenever you make a connection to it. Unless you're crazy and do certain strange things with your web browser it wouldn't ever be personally identifiable on its own, though it could be used to rule out a relationship if it were significantly different. From what I understand it was the behavioral correlations that sealed this case more than anything else. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Just as long as checkusers continue to snag the socks and launder them, that's the important thing. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

JackyRT is indefblocked. Time for WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another country heard from

A red-link user [16] whose very first edit comes to Fru23's defense. Right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough

It seems you are turning this into a witch hunt against anyone who does not agree with you and tries to point it out. Stop bulling other editors into supporting your pov. JackyRT (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have clumsily attempted to file another sock checkuser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not very imaginative- I wonder if a CU is even necessary, but it'd certainly be a nice icing on the cake. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just in case an admin doesn't block him first. I probably should have filed at SSP, but I'm not sure how to do it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin just indef-blocked him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, already done. WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another admin, User:Nishkid64, has confirmed 3 other Fox 'n Socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts, all of which were apparently "sleeper" accounts. I'm assuming they will get blocked in due time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And Wknight94 has wielded his wiki light-saber and dispatched them to the wiki phantom zone. That makes 4 RBI's for Wknight94 today, from this thread alone. Every time one of these socks makes his voice heard, 2 or 3 more of his socks get sent to the laundry. Do I detect a trend here? Wknight94 has indef-blocked them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you might be taking a wee bit too much delight in all this. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and I might just be encouraging him. Enough of this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was over

Now KingsOfHearts is claiming they are brothers...who happen to edit the same articles and sometimes accidentally use the same incorrect Wikipedia terminology? Since I was accused of bad adminship by Bstone for declining what I thought looked like a fairly obvious unblock request...I'll let some other folks look at it. --Smashville^talk 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

KOH was claiming this when he was originally blocked. I'm not sure if it's a reasonable story to accept... and even if it's true, KOH can still potentially serve as FRU's meatpuppet. Furthermore, I question whether an unblock is in order considering KOH's editing history. In any case, if he is unblocked he should be forcibly renamed due to name similarities to King of Hearts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not an admin, but the dog ate my homework "my brother is the real vandal" is the most transparent unblock request ever. Good decline, Bstone is incredibly wrong. After ec: he shouldn't be unblocked. Net negative to the project, no interest in contributing positively, quite apart from the sock/meat issues. // roux   18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm too involved myself to review your <subliminal message> completely reasonable and correct </subliminal message> unblock decline myself, but for any other editors choosing to waste their time reviewing this, note that the checkuser's conclusions indicate that the half dozen or so sockpuppet accounts were all editing from a "similar set of computers similar to those which might be found in a typical office environment". So these brothers evidently work together too.

Might I suggest that we've allowed this person to waste enough of our time? When we have ANI threads about sockpuppetry that go on for this long, the case is usually more complex and the puppeteer is at least slightly less obvious than this one. Time to let the thread die and let the bot do it's job, I think. --barneca (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

KingOfHearts came into IRC and asked if anyone would be willing to post a message for him here. I agreed. He asked me to say: I have two computer in a room at my house that connect through a router that does not mean we work together, me and my brother are still in high school the reason why one of the ips is registred to FCPS. Raul654 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Methinks thou do'est protest too much" ♪BMWΔ 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Bill O'Reilly employed high school students. Didn't one of them claim to work for Bill O'Reilly? --Smashville^talk 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He just made a post that his "brother" made...only his brother said his real username was KingOfHearts...whoops! Plaxicoed! --Smashville^talk 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IRC transcript

I talked with KingOfHearts in IRC about his claims of innocence. Here is the transcript (I am Ceiling_Cat)

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - I have a question for you

<Ceiling_Cat> And I intend to post my question and your answer to the AN

<Ceiling_Cat> Agreed?

<KingsOfHearts> Ok

<KingsOfHearts> yes?

<Ceiling_Cat> I'd like to get something straight. You're saying that your brother made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fru23&curid=20171985&diff=257717171&oldid=257705823 - from his computer

<Ceiling_Cat> right?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> Yes i also retired mine

<Ceiling_Cat> And then you want and made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KingsOfHearts&curid=14957465&diff=257718062&oldid=257604179 - from your computer, yes?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> we got caught

<KingsOfHearts> so i was trying to get out of it ad save one account

<KingsOfHearts> and save one account.

<The359> those edits 4 minutes apart is quite suspect

<KingsOfHearts> Ya I was with him.

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - and you made them from seperate computers?

<KingsOfHearts> I think it was same comp

<Ceiling_Cat> that's awfully convenient

<KingsOfHearts> He told me that irl that i was going to get banned

<KingsOfHearts> But the fact that we are brothers goes back like 4 monthes ago

<KingsOfHearts> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Please_UnBlock_me

<Ceiling_Cat> were you ever editing at the same time from seperate computers?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<Ceiling_Cat> when?

<KingsOfHearts> I don't know

<KingsOfHearts> i could get him to though.

<Ceiling_Cat> Ok, one last question

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> sure

<Ceiling_Cat> These edits:

<Ceiling_Cat> (one sec)

<Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256944340&oldid=256510063

<Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256946659&oldid=256944340

<Ceiling_Cat> 14 minutes apart, to the same article.

<Ceiling_Cat> Explain please.

<KingsOfHearts> I don't know

<KingsOfHearts> I can't realy

<Ceiling_Cat> were you on the same computer?

<KingsOfHearts> No

<KingsOfHearts> same Ip yes

<KingsOfHearts> we have to computers it the same room

<KingsOfHearts> *two

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - unfortunately, I have checkuser, and checkuser tells me that you're lying.

<The359> Shocker

<KingsOfHearts> So is the ip differant

* Rjd0060 has been telling him that for days, with no checkuser :P

<Ceiling_Cat> I am posting the data now

Checkuser evidence shows the edits in question [17] [18] almost certainly came from the same computer. He's lying when he says they used different computers. Therefore I am inclined to disbelieve his claims in their entirety. Raul654 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, we have a saying: "admit you screwed up, the repercussions will always be less than if you deny and get found out". It goes hand in hand with "make me come investigating, and you're gonna get screwed". ♪BMWΔ 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully request redacting that log unless both parties gave their consent to have that published here. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was on the channel too, KingOfHearts has said that he "has no objections" at 20:47 --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If he agreed then... Durova^Charge! 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Endgame

I don't see any acknowledgment of impropriety, respect for rules, truthful statements, or constructive edits forthcoming. Given the shameless pattern of deceit, disruption, and denial ad infinitum, are we to the point of WP:RBI for all subsequent issues involving this editor? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He certainly seems to be trying very hard to exhaust everyone's patience. Shimgray | talk | 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

De facto RBI on a given person/user strikes me as sounding a lot like a community ban. Is this what we're proposing? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment If you look all the way up, you'll notice the original request was for a topic ban, akin to community ban, and sock puppetry was discovered later. :) PS: I'd like to congratulate everyone on finding the sock puppetry and blocking KoH so fast. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez... guess I forgot what we had set out to do here anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's called serendipity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on if we should propose a defacto RBI / topic (aka community per Mendaliv) ban would be welcome. Although I guess RBI is de facto for any new sockpuppets either way.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:KingsOfHearts is being advised to create a new account to get around the alleged compromising of his account by his alleged brother. Supposing that actually happens, how would this proposed topic ban come into play, if at all? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So we will be ignoring the sock puppeting then? Its one thing to be compromised, but another to create at least 5 sockpuppets.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope not. What I'm asking is whether any new user that KOH creates should be pre-empted from editing this topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that the checkuser turned up a few "sleeper" accounts (at least it says so above, I think), so I endorse a topic ban at the least. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, request indef block of User:HelpPlease234 based on probable sockpuppet relationship (see KoH's talk page for evidence/ here) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted on WP:AIV, but they might decline it. Maybe coincidental, but notice the HelpPlease234 vs. Fru23. What's with the digits? And I wonder what Fru is supposed to mean anyway, but we never got that far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but I'm guessing there are probably more sleeper accounts that has slipped by us, I mean this confession was from September! Lastly, if you think about it, if KoH KNEW his brother had access to his account in September, why didn't KOH change the password since obviously, right now the "legitimate" KoH owner has access to the account (why they are asking for compromised issue)?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because he/they are trying to figure out how to get unblocked somehow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser did not turn up the now-indef-blocked User:HelpPlease234. Perhaps a checkuser should be requested on that one and see what else crawls out from under the Fox 'n Socks rocks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I honestly don't see any reason to assume good faith any more with this guy. The statements made by the array of sockpuppets wholly contradicts this "it was my brother" nonsense, and given the repeated disruption I don't see any reason to allow it to continue in any form. This should end in a community ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban, possibly banz0r. This is getting silly. We had a lot of !votes in favor of the topic ban earlier, but since this is a different thing, I think a new proposal might be in order (perhaps at WP:AN, which is where ban proposals are supposed to go anyway). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse new checkuser, endorse discussion for community ban. I thought about it and KoH's "brother" basically admitted to sock abuses in the evidence for Helpme, since he said "one of my brother's accounts". Last I checked, One Of meant more than one, which establishes sock puppetry from at least September (probably earlier if I looked at the creation logs for the other socks). At least this puppeteer doesn't seem to know much tech wise on avoiding checkuser or else we'd have to resort to the old WP:DUCK test. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree - After reading through this, well.. ya.. I shouldn't have to say any more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about taking this to arbitration. [19] I'm sure he'll advise them of the 10-or-so blocks for contentious editing and the sock farm that was exposed by his "brother" inadvertently revealing the IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• A total block is a blunt tool that policy says should be used only with extreme care. It doesn't seem to have benefited the project by changing the behaviour of the user in question, and another total block probably won't either. A topic ban is problematic, since the boundaries around a topic are slippery, and it does little to encourage the user to be more reasonable. Is it possible to put the user on "probation" instead, with an agreement not to edit the article (while still enabling conributions to its talk page? Has mediation been attempted? There must be better ways than blocking to turn a difficult user into a productive one ... Tony (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The sockfarm's primary purpose is to bend the O'Reilly articles in the direction the user wants, i.e. to remove material he doesn't like. The user has consistently done this despite attempts at discussion. There is no evidence that their behavior is likely to change. The project benefits when disruptive users are kept at bay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the community has been dealing with this guy for months with constant POV pushing, edit warring, and a complete disregard for both other editors' opinions and Wikipedia policies and expectations. Pile that on top of what's now been shown to be a lengthy willingness to participate in sockpuppetry and outright lie about it, and I just don't see any hope of rehabilitation. These sorts of people rely on the good faith of those unfamiliar with the situation; in this instance I would strongly urge you to take the word of so many admins and editors who are familiar with this lunacy. The frequency, length and duration of threads related to these abuses on ANI should be a weighty enough testament to the need for a community ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I initially requested a temporary topic ban, these later developments have caused me to support a permanent community ban. The use of sockpuppetry to edit war, combined with the rank dishonesty, shows an unwillingness to take the project seriously and a total lack of desire to work constructively. As Blaxthos said, with this pattern of behavior it should end with a community ban. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Given that the majority of responding admins (indeed, all of the admins/editors who have gotten involved in this) seem to support a community ban, and that the initial requester Ramsquire has withdrawn his request for a topic ban in favor of a community ban, we need someone to make an official proposal at WP:AN. I don't mind helping, but I don't know that I have the granular understanding of the sequence of events that have made this necessary. While we could always simply reference this (and the other) ANI thread(s), I'm sure that it would be more helpful if someone more directly involved authored the request. Any volunteers? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse I believe that several accounts have already received indefinite blocks. I'm not sure why this discussion is continuing and isn't closed yet. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - What Ramsquire said. Socking results in a de facto community ban, so it looks like we're done here. // roux   18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Obviously...I think I made my reasons clear already? --Smashville^talk 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the proposal at WP:AN. You can view it here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation at Sean Hannity

Resolved

 – Consensus appears to have been reached

User Niteshift has violated the three revert rule at the Sean Hannity page. He is the sole editor objecting to inclusion of a Media Matters item. On talk, he has missteted facts to support his reversions.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is probably more suitable. Docku: What up? 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A major exception to the WP:3RR rule, is when dealing with biographies of living people. See WP:BLP. I took a look at the edits, and though there are a lot of reverts, I'd say they're warranted since the information at issue is negative information about a living person. I'd recommend continuing discussions at the talkpage, and don't re-add the information unless there's consensus to do so. --Elonka 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, and the disputed content is basically a POV-push on the part of the poster here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe this is a 3R violation. The material is being disputed and I have asked repeatedly that it be discussed before being added back in. Jimintheatl is being slightly deceptive by saying that I am the only editor objecting since the discussion hasn't even been going on for a day. Unfortunately, there are two editors taking turns re-adding the info before it is talked out and it makes it appear that I am engaging in an edit war while they remain under the 3R (althought Jimintheatl has added the info 3 times in the past 24 hours himself). I've made 3 requests for discussion before adding the contentious material. I don't feel that a request for discussion BEFORE adding contentious material in a WP:BLP article is unreasonable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There did seem to be some tag-teaming going on with this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Would some protection of this page be in order? It seems that this one needs to be forced to the talk page, since the various sides refuse to do so? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If they're named accounts, the only thing that would work is full protection. HalfShadow 23:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they've reached some sort of accord now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hate mail from user who was warned

On December 14, I made a post on User talk:Nicholasstorriearce talk page regarding a page he had edited. I got a message from him via Email saying to mind my own and not to mess with him. Now his userpage say's the same thing Here, I replied saying what he was talking about, and he said that he's tired of me messing with him and that he's mad and I better not ever mess with him ever again. What should be done about this, if anything? SteelersFan-94 21:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Warn for personal attacks, and if not heeded, block. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Userpage deleted. User warned. Looks like a vandalism only account but AGF for now. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please post a name and address?

Is this valid on potentially young (or any other) user's talk page? See [20] ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No. If you have email enabled on your account, the other user can contact you through that. If not, you're under no obligation to do so. Never post a name/contact information on your userpage in response to another user's request unless you have a really good reason to do so. Hermione1980 02:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the user might be referring to e-mail address (as opposed to home address), which is an a somewhat impolite question, but not an abusive one. 'name address' certainly does sound like an e-mail however the second part of his statement "I'd like to talk to you about something on it" sound more like something you would do with an email. The situation certainly is suspicious though given that the account making the request had only made one single edit (which was to post a list to Special:EmailUser or his/her userpage). It looks like Kybalion from Wind (talk · contribs) could be a SPA trying to contact Lorty2 (talk · contribs) for some reason. Might be worth keeping an eye on but it does not look like any admin attention is needed yet. Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to all who looked into it. Indeed it isn't clear what "name address" means and I suppose it may just be another chess player. Thanks for assuaging my paranoia and keeping an eye on the contact. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The user's only other contrib was to put an email link on his/her userpage. I think it's pretty clearly just an attempt to communicate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't I have been contacted about this? Yes, I wanted a private talk through mail... I didn't see anything wrong with that. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chad Dukes (radio personality)

An anonymous User, using a variety of IP addresses and non-existant user names, has been vandalizing Talk:Chad Dukes (radio personality) and Chad Dukes (radio personality), off and on for a few months. Please note constant undoings on my part. — Loaves (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The same anon user also continued, until a couple months ago, to vandalize The Greaseman page, insisting that "Grease" was dead loooong after he had released a reply saying he was alive and well. A rangeblock seems necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 19, 2008 @ 03:14

Two IfDs overdue from 5 December

Two IfDs need closing.[21](nom withdrawn),[22]. Ty 03:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Blocking of IP: 76.16.197.193 [[23]] from Posting(Vandalism)

Resolved

 – Warned, no admin attention needed at this point, on this board. — Realist² 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to continue vandalizing wiki pages. His/Her most recent vandalism was of the Blizzard Entertainment wiki.

Here's the Vandalism [[24]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jluzwick (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given the editor a warning, if the problems persist make a report here. Cheers. — Realist² 03:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive username

• Resolved

   – Blocked by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs), talk page deleted and protected by Bjweeks (talk · contribs). ("user:" prefix added to title to be a little more explanatory) Icewedge (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This charming little twerp is continuing his disruption via the talk page. Would someone please lock it down? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Snyder

Resolved

 – negative unsourced BLP problems removed, page protected to stop further problems

Could another admin take a look at the article Daniel Snyder. Multiple IPs are adding the same unsourced personal analysis. I warned 8.224.112.254 about this, and just a few minutes ago, an apparently unrelated IP, 76.123.201.10, showed up to put it back in. Both of these IPs have edited nothing but this article, and seem to be working together to edit war. As I have been involved in reverting some of their work, I do not wish to get into any 3RR problems myself, so perhaps another admin could review and set things straight via either protections and/or blocks as needed. Grassy ass. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to kylu and Tiptoety for helping sort this out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken AfD

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Can someone fix this Ethnic Bosnians article's AfD? I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Here's the edit page for the AfD, which links to the day's log [[25]]. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I sort of fixed the article AfD page (not the log page). Just add reason and sig, and subst the template. —kurykh 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, the AfD template should have given extremely clear instructions. AfD2 is for the article subpage, AfD3 is for the log page. —kurykh 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be fixed. —kurykh 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

admin abuse

Resolved

 – Final warning left Blocked. Black Kite 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was blocked without warning by an administrator who stated mistruths as his reason for my blocking.

His agenda is obviously to preserve an article as he sees fit even if it doesn't fit with reality hence User:Caulde needs to lose his ability to block people.

--Voooooh (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You were actually blocked for edit warring, which I see you started doing again as soon as your block expired. I'd suggest you use the talk pages instead, or you're likely to find yourself blocked again. --fvw* 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with fvw here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly doesn't get it, but final warning left, up to the editor now. Black Kite 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You were informed that you were edit warring not once, not twice, but three times before you were blocked. In addition, you continue after your block to attempt to reinsert the section that had you blocked in the first place. The information is already in the article. --Smashville^talk 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. An ability to interact with other humans, and an ability to read stuff like WP:EW is required. If he is capable of doing this, he can rejoin us in a week. If not, he should go somewhere else. Edit warring combined with POV pushing equals very little patience from me. --barneca (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, look like Black Kite was warning at the same time I was blocking. If someone wants to reduce the length or see if the warning works this time, I've no problem with anyone overruling me. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the block. He's blocked for edit warring - not only does he continue it, he makes a complaint about the block which means he very obviously does not get it. Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and it is very obvious that this editor intended to continue his edit warring, I endorse this block. --Smashville^talk 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I was going to block myself but changed my mind. Barneca is probably right, in hindsight. Black Kite 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking BK...blocking yourself is never a good idea ;-P ♪BMWΔ 12:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lies... WilyD 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed.... Black Kite 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What a delightful thread! Caulde 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that cases of "admin abuse" are often just that- people abusing admins? l'aquatique || talk 06:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And the dirty admins love the abuse, they love it yeah...* I'll be going now. * Only a masochist would be an admin anyway.. // roux   06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohh yeah baby *spank*, who's your sysop *spank* Who's your sysop baby ... ♪BMWΔ 12:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kate Morgan and Talk:Kate Morgan

User Johntcullen has been using Kate Morgan and Talk:Kate Morgan to promote the content of a book that he wrote regarding the subject. He posted extensive information on the article page from his original research included in the book that strayed from the article's biographical nature (example diff). The subject user has also been manipulating the talk page primarily by deleting his own posts and promising to leave Wikipedia, only to return.

User Johntcullen and an IP address user have also been using the article and talk page as forums regarding the facts and their respective opinions of the subject rather than the best way to incorporate each's opinion into the article [example diffs: [26], [27] (reverted), [28], [29] (Johntcullen revert - see edit summary)]. I warned both with Template:uw-chat2. Additionally I warned Johntcullen with Template:uw-own2, as he seems to take exception to any deletion/modification of his content.

I deleted a significant amount of text on 21 November, two weeks after I placed maintenance tags Template:Off-topic and Template:Originalresearch on top of the article and two sections (diff). I clearly stated my desire to delete that text on the talk page (diff) and received no response. Article page after text deleted.

IP addresses involved include 24.27.72.98, 24.175.68.222.

I need help with:

1. Best way to incorporate the contributions the conflicting users without violating WP:GRAPEVINE, and without straying from the biographical subject of the article.
2. Proper disposition of the forum content on the talk page, i.e., should it be deleted or not
3. Potentially blocking user Johntcullen, the IP address user(s), and semi-protecting the article and talk page.

KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the solution to this problem would seem Articles for Deletion unless there are additional sources. On the basis of what's there I do not see now the article meets Verifibility. DGG (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a while to give the editors a break from the dynamic IP who keeps adding unsuitable content, and left a note on the talk-page re your other concerns. I'll also keep the article watchlisted, but feel free to drop a note on my talk page or re-report back here if it looks like I'm not paying enough attention. As DGG suggests, AfD may be the final destination of the article anyway, but I'll leave that decision to others ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Casablanca (film) under vandal attack

Resolved

 – VirtualSteve got the IPs, I semi'd the article. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please semi the article and block the 3 4 IPs involved? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Plus 3 of those IP's now blocked by me. Cheers>--VS ^talk 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid continues personal attacks and vandalism after several warnings, explanations and even after filing a report at ANI

I'm being forced to file this report again as a similar but shorter report was filed at ANI earlier but no action was taken. Thereafter, this editor has been informed repetitively of the uncivil personal attacks and wikitag vandalism but only to fail in stopping the editor from personal attacks and vandalism.

Continued personal attacks

• Here the editor has called other editors "extremists".
• Here the has attacked other editors by cracking insulting racist comment and was informed about unacceptable behavior
• Satanoid continued personal attacks and was given another/final warning about personal attacks but he still continued here and here in edit summary.
  
• He was reported at ANI and informed about the report here. But no action was taken on ANI.
• He again hurled insults by calling other editor "son" in a demeaning manner ("Don't overdo it son") and was was warned about personal attacks once again here.
• Regardless, satanoid again resorted to the same insulting behavior by insulting other editor calling him "son" in a demeaning way.
• Satanoid force edits uncivil language ("fucked") on talkpages, his earlier such remarks were toned down by other editor but Satanoid comes back and forced edit uncivil language.

Vandalism

• This where another editor "Sinneed" warned Satanoid for his vandalism of wikitags, but Satanoid continues vandalizing the tags again see here.
• Satanoid was warned by editor Sinneed again here but Satanoid still continued vandalized tags here.
• The tags were once again restored as discussion was in progress between 4 other editors on talkpage, but Satanoid again vandalized the wikitags.

Suspected sockpuppetry

• Another editor had expressed concerns on previous vandalism from an IP range of this user please see.
• This account also seems like a suspected sockpuppet of Satanoid.

Religious hate comment
One more editor was outraged at Satanoid's religious comments on the death of Sikh guru's sons and he informed me about it seeking help on wikipedia process to file a report. There can be several other damaging edits that can be added but for the sake of saving time, I'm leaving them out. Perhaps other editors can add them if they have time.

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion and by the way, the prior discussion is archived here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While I think Satanoid is out of line, I believe that he or she sincerely and honestly does not understand Wikipedia at all, and is firmly convinced that those of us who are taking the article away from Satanoid's intended path are indeed extremists or their sympathizers who are vandals damaging Wikipedia. I see no examples of excellent behaviour from any current active editor on the article, though Satanoid is PERHAPS the most overt in the lanugage and insults. I see that only as a matter of degree though. And yes, I include myself in that list. I see several places where I might have done better. I do wish the personal attacks and edit warring would end. If any heavily experienced editor would care to send me mail through wikipedia, I would very much appreciate suggestions of ideas for how to have helped more. One editor who I asked said "Run away quickly.", and I understand that advice better now. :) sinneed (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, what in the world is going on at User talk:67.194.202.113? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably and fairly pathetic if so. Ok, I've warned him yet again. If he doesn't shape up, I'll give him a short block to stop this. I do suspect some socking but I'll wait on it. If he's blocked, he can't edit as an IP (although I'm concerned when he's arguing with himself to form a "consensus"). However, you really should work on shorter section headings and just plain writing less. Long complaints like this are less likely to be read, and the addition of the yellow box is just plain obnoxious in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682, I've removed the color. However, I'm not sure how to trim down the content of complaint. I wanted to include enough history of the disputed behavior (and in time sequence) so that it puts less time burden on the reader to see what is going on. Noted the section heading advice for future as well; leaving it intact for now because it may break (not sure) the links in the message I left at couple of other pages. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first advice I would give is clean up the talk page. Remove all the arguments about edit summaries that are there (those are personal issues and not article issues) and the general arguments about each others conduct. That belongs at RFCs, not there. I might just archive things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of RfCs, have you thought about establishing a conduct a Conduct Request for Comment for User:Satanoid? --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a user problem. I mean, it's clearly a user problem but the issue is bigger than that. Look at Talk:Sikh extremism. 90% of that is on an argument eliminated here, because it actually belongs elsewhere. The archives are full of stupidity like "I was warned so here's a three paragraph explanation of why I was warned" and arguments about edit summaries. None of which are relevant. There's got to be huge socking going on as multiple new users shouldn't be able to put in complex ref formatting for the same articles. However, all's well. This still doesn't compare to the fun I was having before. At least nobody's accusing me of Holocaust denial again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be concerned that the RfC would only result in more soap-boxing. The squabbling is already so very bad.sinneed (talk)

Well, if anyone is interested, I received this response. Please ignore his attacks, this last time, as I warned him yet again. As I said before, I don't care if he honestly believes it or not. That type of language is inappropriate here. The last character I dealt with may also have sincerely believed I deserved this crap but that still got him blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is rather amazing when, in the middle of a series of insults, a person will insist they have never insulted anyone. sinneed (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add he has been at it again here, targeting a fellow contributor to Sikh-History.com (because he thought Randip was me). This shows clearly he has been involved in Internet trolling in the past and posting anti-Sikh sentiments before. I really wish people like this would get a life and be more constructive. Just for the record sikh-history.com is a veryn anti-Khalistani site.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have given the wrong link. The section That's all folks was my creation to notify people that I am no longer editing under that IP anymore. Satanoid's edits were in the previous section. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh terrorism

Since the editing at Sikh extremism has controlled itself, it looks like he's decided on creating a new article: Sikh terrorism. I've redirected it back to extremism as a pov fork. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That, combined with this which followed from a bad faith assumption, was enough. I've blocked him for a day. If he wants to work with others, he can when he returns. If there are socks continuing this, tell me and his block will be worse as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How is Sikh terrorism a POV fork? If anything, sources are more likely to talk about Sikh terrorism than about Sikh extremism, though the two are obviously related. I think you misunderstand what has happened Sikh extremism. One side of the dispute got tired of fighting, and so stopped editing. In Satanoid's case, if he over-fought and got blocked. Now the article is completely skewed in favor of the whitewashers. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He started Sikh extremism, tried to get the article renamed, lost that argument, tried to get theocratic and undemocratic in the lead, lost that argument, and then created a new article to get those in the lead. Add in a long history of bad faith statements and blatant lying and I'm done playing games with him. He was warned enough and knew exactly what he was doing. You yourself are starting down the same path and should stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was the one who tried to get it renamed, but yes, I didn't appreciate how Satanoid added "undemocratic" without using a source. I think I left him a note about that, not that it would change his behavior. The problem is when people edit based on their personal opinion of the ideas under discussion rather than what most sources say. Your claim that I am "starting down the same path" is absurd and demonstrates that you either have not investigated this conflict properly (see my note on your talk page), or you have entered as a non-neutral player. The most that could be said ill of me is that I used language other users considered patronizing ("fella," "buddy," "honey-chile," etc), but I have since realized that they have no joviality in this conflict, so I no longer use these terms. Aside from that, I challenge you to show a time when I have not been acting to uphold WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and other content policies. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not in the mood to play wiki-lawyer games with you. Comments like this and honey-chile are not remotely civil; others told you they were patronizing and to stop it, and now you act surprised that people didn't like it. Your passive-aggressive comments are clear at the talk page and I'm not interested in going further on it. Adding that you are no longer going to assume good faith is far from helpful. Your comments that "once they find a reason to get rid of" one source, you'll simply drag in more to get what you want is not the way to do things. Why not just actually come out with your sources, as opposed to this strategy of flooding everyone with a source at a time until we all tire and you get what you want? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not in the mood to play wiki-lawyer games with you - I challenge you to show a time when I have not been acting in favor of content policies, and you call this "wiki-lawyer?" This is troubling. As an admin, aren't you supposed to care about our content policies?

Comments like this and honey-chile are not remotely civil - I have emphasized several times that I have stopped, yet you (and coincidentally, Sikh-history & Co.) continue to dwell on this. Another curiosity is that you've never even warned Sikh-history about his inappropriate accusations (accusing me of religious prejudice, accusing me of being Satanoid, accusing me of "creating bad faith," attacking me as a "google scholar," comparing me to people who get innocents hanged). Some of these most recent accusations are even on your talk page, but no, you only focus on my use of "fella," which is nothing to Sikh-history's comparison between me and people who get "innocents hanged."

"Adding that you are no longer going to assume good faith is far from helpful" - I gave numerous reasons for stopping. Unless you think I am wrong, why should I fool myself and assume good faith even after evidence to the contrary?

"once they find a reason to get rid of" one source, you'll simply drag in more" - The problem is that they disregard my sources without valid reasons. They do not argue from our content policies. I always (so much as I can remember) argue from our content policies. Faced with much dragging of feet, imposition of false criteria, disregard for true criteria (WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, &c.), and other disingenuous behavior, I do not give up, but rather tarry on.

"as opposed to this strategy of flooding everyone with a source at a time" - That's hardly an accurate description of my "strategy." Please assume good faith. On two occasions I've brought great lists of reliable sources supporting my position, with direct quotes to make it clear. At this point, I hesitate to bring more because they will simply use a blanket statement to disregard them (such as calling all of those articles from RS newspapers "sensationalist" so as to avoid acknowledging my position). Why do more work if the same sort of disruption will stop my work from bearing fruit? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A baby turkey since you love coloquialisms so much and refer to people in a coloquial manner, I will give an apt coloquialism from where I live "just give it a bleedin rest". In other words, you presume people are fools and expect them to have good faith when from day one you have created bad faith. By your own admission you have no or little knowledge of Indian (or for that matter Sikh) issues, and yet you get upset when people challenge your presumptions. Your "google spam" method of flooding with sources, by typing in sensationalist headlines into search engines, is not good enough. If people don't agree with you or challenge you move on. Don't throw the proverbial toys out of the pram. Ricky has deleted several of my edits and I have accepted the reasons, however, you cannot seem to accept it. Stop creating Bad Faith and move on. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear A baby turkey, the following comment is yet another insult of other editors involved in discussion with you and the targets of your insults - "but I have since realized that they have no joviality in this conflict, so I no longer use these terms". You are denying there was anything wrong in your comments and reflecting that you stopped because there was something wrong in the targets of those insults. Please stop portraying others as fools. Then you claim you have stopped insults and still say something like - "yet you (and coincidentally, Sikh-history & Co.) continue to dwell on..", which is yet another insulting comment from you and after you claim you had stopped. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

@Roadahead: What is insulting about it? Do you have joviality in this conflict? Sikh-history has called me "Turkey man" before, but I really don't care because I'm usually cheerful even in a dispute, and don't see anything seriously insulting about it. Where you go wrong is in thinking that I think "there was something wrong in the targets of those insults." That's incorrect, I think there was a lack of joviality, but this is not necessarily something "wrong" with them. People just have different styles, and furthermore as Sikhs these issues probably have more emotional weight with you than with others. As for "yet you (and coincidentally, Sikh-history & Co.) continue to dwell on..", where is the insult? Also, Roadahead, what do you think of Sikh-history's more serious insults against me, such as comparing me to someone who gets "innocents hanged?"

@Sikh-history: You accuse me (in a supreme violation of AGF) thusly: "when from day one you have created bad faith." It is not clear what the basis of this accusation is. What did I do wrong on day one? Point out that you include original research and unreliable sources in the article? As for your claim "Your "google spam" method of flooding with sources, by typing in sensationalist headlines into search engines, is not good enough, actually, they are good enough because they satisfy Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies, even if you happen to hate the picture they present. The newspapers, books, and journal article are all RS (you haven't proven otherwise), and explicitly support using "theocratic," and I've brought them in great numbers; their eventual inclusion is inevitable assuming that Wikipedia content rules will eventually determine the article content. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Headstrong neiva - Block needed

Resolved

 – Blocked indef — Realist² 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The above editor have a colorful block log and is on a second last warning for this month alone. He repeatedly adds unsourced information to articles, amongst other things. If an admin could take a look it would be appreciated. — Realist² 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. This has gone on long enough. Far too long, perhaps. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tending to think this was the appropriate action to take...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be the article subject

Irfan Yusuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject to some editing disputes, it has some serious WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, Irfsol (talk · contribs) claims to be Irfan Yusuf in this message. However, his style of editing including large chunks of uncited text and giving me a yahoo email doesn't sound convincing to me. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf is quite prolific online and should be contactable to check this. He regularly writes for Crikey. Orderinchaos 07:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Defiantly not Irfan, don't even have to contact Irfan to know this guy is not him. Rgoodermote  10:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be certain, I'd have him contact OTRS and let them decide how to handle it. -- Vary Talk 14:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Originally posted (and then accidentally blanked by poster) at 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the account seems to primarily be taking exception to this series of edits, which is quite understandable - I don't know if any of it is true or not, not having read up on Mr. Yusuf, but true or not the way the information is presented is highly critical. Adding large chunks of uncited text isn't unusual for a newbie, especially one editing their own article, and the yahoo address seems to be a genuine one - a google search turns it up in a few comments made my Mr. Yusuf on one of his blogs, planet irf. Obviously he's going about things in the wrong way, but I think it's quite likely that this is the subject, so I'm contacting them on their talk about their options. Thanks for bringing this here, Michellecrisp, and I'm sorry he's getting a little argumentative with you on your talk. -- Vary Talk 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, still doesn't seem like him. From what I read at his blogs. But anything is possible in the wild west. Rgoodermote  16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Faith regarding Merge Discussion

Resolved

 – IP blocked by William. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the merge discussion between [30] and [31] (available [32]): someone named McJeff closed the discussion early on the following false pretenses:

1. 1 - that there was a consensus (far too few commenters)
2. 2 - that someone was "banned" for the discussion (the person they had fraudulently banned, had not even commented on the merge, and has been frequently hounded by others for fraudulent reasons as well).

Additionally, LGVB's conduct is NOT the same as the user they are fraudulently accused of being (I say fraudulently because absolutely no evidence has been provided, nor did anyone even engage in disussion with the user).

This is beyond the pale of corruption, and needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems likely that this IP is LittleGreenVolleyball (talk · contribs) evading a block. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And another editor Plaxicoes itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note the previous ANI thread I started about this IP address and the blocked editors LittleGreenVolleyball and LGOutcast. McJeff (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of accidently created page

Resolved

While adding articles to a category, I accidentally created this rather than here.So I'd appreciate it if it was deleted soon. --Roaring Siren (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony disappearance‎ vs. Caylee Anthony murder‎

Resolved

 – Discussion to continue on article talk page.

Someone did a page-move without clear consensus, and now there's an edit skirmish going on, as a red-link keeps trying to reinstate the "disappearance" page. Obviously, that won't do, as it would result in two pages about the identical topic. Looking for some recommendations here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect the newer page to the older page, protect them both, and leave a pp-dispute tag on the top. While admins aren't supposed to "pick sides", if it can be established, returning complex situations to the "status quo" before the conflict can sometimes be the best way to handle it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hang on just a minute. "Disappearance" is no longer appropriate, as the remains found recently are now confirmed to be those of the missing child. So should the article now be renamed "Caylee Anthony homicide‎" until such time as murder is proven? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How about just "Caylee Anthony"? Or "Caylee Anthony Death"? I'm not supporting Casey, btw, just trying to make sure it's not misleading, especially since her trial is upcoming. Rhoadrunner (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use this message board as a proxy for proper methods of dispute resolution. This is not the place to carry out this discussion. If there is a status quo to return to, then return to it, and leave the articles in the status quo while discussing the matter on the relevent talk pages. There may be one obviously right situation, however being right is not a liscence to edit war. Leave the wrong version up for now, and solve the situation via civil discussion, THEN make the change. Don't edit war simply because you feel that you are "right"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Calm yourself, sir. I brought this here because there seemed to be an edit war brewing, and that's an appropriate use of this page. I think there is now some basis for continued discussion on the article's talk page, so I'm going to mark this "resolved", as I think no admin action is needed now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the red linked user, I think Caylee Anthony case could be the article title. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion back on Talk:Caylee Anthony murder‎, which is the article's name at the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony Case

Would labeling an article "Caylee Anthony Murder" be inappropriate?

Current information: Child disappeared Mother charged but not brought to trial for murder of child Autopsy lists "Homicide" as cause of death, but not if it was manslaughter or murder, accidental or deliberate.

Thank you. Rhoadrunner (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see previous article. Rhoadrunner (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of MfD page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Through community consensus, Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has been banned from editing. seicer | talk | contribs 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Currently, this MfD is used by WLU to sling all kinds of mud at me, rather than to discuss the topic. I am unfamiliar with MfDs, but my guess is that this is not what it is intended for. The same user already has created a page dedicated to me is his own user space, it appears, without informing me about it, so I see no need to poor all his frustrations onto this MfD page as well. It's quite clear that there is no consensus to delete, so the MfD should be closed anyway. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That MFD seems to be only missing a formal declaration of war - the mud is flying in both directions thick and fast. Orderinchaos 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you both of you just quit discussing it (you've both made your opinions clear) then you'll be fine. Secondly, you cannot decide that there is a consensus to keep as it's (the page in your userpace) actually written by you, and, to me, it looks pretty even leaning towards delete. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the page in the interests of keeping all of this drama out of Wikipedia, per my rationales detailed on the MFD. I will provide copies of the page to Guido and to other parties upon request. It is best to keep this to your personal web-host, forum or blog. seicer | talk | contribs 16:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also provided a copy of the page to Guido. seicer | talk | contribs 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that was a poor decision, since there was no consensus to delete at all. So, please restore the page forthwith. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean it wasn't resolved the way you wanted it to be resolved. There's only so much that can be done here on ANI - this is not the place to have a full-blown debate on your userspace page. If you don't like the way the MfD was resolved, take it to DR. Tan | 39 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean it was resolved because a user who voted delete unilaterally decided it was.

I've asked for a delete review. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which I cannot find listed? seicer | talk | contribs 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 17 CIreland (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, this screams bad faith: "...an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless." Can you please find a citation or substantive content to verify that poor acquisition? In fact, I can't recall having any prior interactions with you, Guido, because I have purposefully kept myself out of the dramas that you seem to induce on an almost weekly basis. In addition, this edit summary seems to have been made in bad faith as well. seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a poor memory. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The bigger picture - banning?

I can't locate the revision which I believe existed on Guido's talk page around 06 Dec 2008 (deletion?) and I can't view the deleted page.

My understanding is that GdB stated that his participation here was to conduct an experiment. GdB may have also been trying to enhance coverage of his own chosen subject at the same time, regardless, his own statements carry a strong connotation that he regards us as a bunch of fools, to be experimented on at will. When I first read his comments on his participation in a "social experiment" I was, umm, repelled.

Can we proceed to a proper community ban discussion? If any revisions or pages are deleted, let's restore them for the purpose of conducting the discussion. I see no reason to permit the continued presence of an editor who has openly stated that he is playing us all as saps. Carcharoth's followup implying a ban did indeed sink into the archives un-noticed, and the editor is now back with more plagues. Let's solve the real problem. Franamax (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

D'ohh! The initial "experiment" post I was thinking of is at his upage, not talk. Other than that, my comments stand. Franamax (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI post by Carcharoth: [33] who I believe had tried to defend and engage with the editor in question - the more fool he in retrospect, got voted against as part of an experiment. Note that at that time, GdB had indicated that he would no longer edit on en:wiki - this is obviously not the case though.Franamax (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - per WP:DISRUPT (has already disrupted and shows no indication that he won't do so again), WP:DENY (why should we give him a WP:SOAPBOX in light of the disruption), and his block log, which shows a lack of interest in ending edit-warring and general disruption of the site.// roux   07:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• User is causing more aggrevation and time loss than the benefit of his edits, so I'd agree with a community ban, though there might be too much drama around this by now to get consensus. --fvw* 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. I have a long bad relationship with Guido here on Wikipedia, and am not a neutral observer at all. I would support a ban, seeing that his behaviour yesterday is a continuation and escalation of the things that got him blocked many times in the past. He now goes around complaining to Jimbo about a RFC draft in userspace[34], after he unsuccessfully tried to MfD it (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:WLU/RFC). He was edit warring again, on Chronic fatigue syndrome (he wasn't alone, but it is again typical behaviour), amongst other to insert a ref where he has a serious COI (he is part of the surveillance committee for the report (see page 5 of the pdf)). All this coupled with his admission that he is here to conduct an experiment gives me no hope that he will ever change and become a net benefit for the project. Fram (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know there's no requirement to inform someone about an RFC you're creating until you've actually posted it to the RFC page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The RFC page was to support discussion of a community ban (I only used an RFC page because I didn't want to create another sub-page); I'm hoping to finish it today or tomorrow to move to AN. I'm of the opinion that the info on the page will be more useful to unfamiliar editors if it's complete (thus worth waiting a day or two before asking for wider consensus on a block or ban) but ultimately it has to be convincing, not comprehensive (but if it's comprehensive, then there's no argument we're only getting part of the story). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support This Guido should be banned. Wikipedia is not therapy or a secure unit. Sticky Parkin 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Since I spent time trying to understand and help others understand what might be happening with Guido I was very upset when he announced his experiment. (Note that when I said this to him he said he was just a messenger which can be seen on his user page.) Since this announcement, there is the information being gathered at WLU's subpage which has the input of other editors and is overwhelming in what it shows going on in the past year with disruptions leading up to the experiment and even more after the announcement. After the announcement there has been multiple claims of 3RR violations with only one of them having a result of protecting the CFS page because of edit warring. There are the debates going on about the deletion of the experiment in two locations (difs already provided for what I am saying so I will not repeat.), a note to Jimbo calling for WLU collections of difs to be deleted again after MFD voted against the deletion and so on. This is out of control already. I tried to see if I could help the situation and I am sorry I couldn't. I finally stopped with frustrations about all of this. Basically I am sorry to say that Guido stated there is a phase 2 going on now and I worry that more disruptions will continue. This (which he deleted after a while) pretty much says it all for me about the situation. This thread made me give up on this whole situation and agree with the other editors that Guido is here for other reasons than to help the project. Sorry it has come to this as I do not take this lightly. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Although my interactions with Guido in the past have been solely with this MFD and its associated DV, and a report I filed at 3RR for edit warring 11 months ago, I have had little to no comment regarding this user. Continually seeking "uninvolved administrators," Guido has continued to make attempts to game the system, and we are running out of these so-called "uninvolved" individuals.

I closed the MFD at 16:56, 17 December 2008, although Guido began this ANI thread at 14:15, and then restored the disputed content to his userpage at 15:23, to which I surmise was because the MFD was not appealing in a manner that benefited him.

He later began a thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Attack page regarding User talk:WLU/RFC, which has been identified as not an attack page, but future content for a potential RFC or AN thread. The page is clearly covered and supported under WP:UP#NOT, item 10.

These continued gamings, misclassifications, threats and blocks have gotten tiresome and has wasted everyone's patience. seicer | talk | contribs 15:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Provisional oppose yes edit warring is unproductive as I have learned. I have also learned that cabals protect pages unreasonably and irrationally. I have also been accused of "gaming" when I have asked that rules be observed or that evidence be supplied for assumptions. Can anyone show me a bad content edit of his? Otherwise let's remember the project is about editing an encyclopedia.Mccready (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[[35]] seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, this is not a Guido diff. I have looked at comments made by WLU which are illogical (WLU's contribution is damaged by Guido's userpage) and am inclined in the absence of evidence to stengthen my oppose. Please provide a diff which shows a bad Guido content edit. I am not saying it is the case here, but I have seen some very nasty gang behaviour on wikipedia that is to the huge detriment of content. Mccready (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You could search for "You seem to have a poor memory" on this page, you could look at this work in progress (the ones dated Dec. 2008 might be clearer, and note that it's ugly, sprawling, not well sorted or triaged, but I'm pretty sure if you read even a sampling you'd see an idea), you could also check the social experiment here, which was deleted in a different version. For pure content, there is this removal of a reliable source, and this, this, this and this set of talk page discussions that clearly supports ME and CFS being the same entity in the mainstream medical establishment, yet this edit still pushing the idea that it's not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) WLU you have provided only 2 content diffs. One where Guido removed a cite of a book about whiplash from the CFS page and one where he removed myalgic encephalopathy from a disambiguation page. Please give me evidence that the first damages wikipedia. I agree that the second was not something I would have done but since a wikipedia search directs to the CFS pages I don't see what damage was done to the project. I will have to strenthen my position to oppose in the absence of evidence.Mccready (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; obviously there is more that I have not chosen to put up here, I'm still only gathering and have yet to sort. I am getting close to contemporary with my review of contributions, after which I will start to more cleanly assemble representative diffs and sections. There will be a lot to read for anyone unfamiliar with Guido. There are content issues here as well, and content issues are notoriously difficult and slow to demonstrate since any editor who is not familiar must become so in order to render an opinion. One other issue that has raised many hackles, mine included, is the "social experiment". I'm of the opinion that there's multiple reasons for a block, and that's one of them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your evidence and that of Seicer. Could you notify me only of content diffs when you have them. I'm quite capable of analysing them. I disagree with your take on the "experiment". We should focus on content on wikipedia.Mccready (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time, I would suggest reviewing the talk pages for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis (which is now an archive on talk:cfs since the pages were merged - talk:myalgic encephalomyelitis will take you there directly. There are several lengthy discussions on whether ME and CFS are considered separate, and if it is undue weight to have a separate page; I think consensus was pretty significantly demonstrated that the answers were no and yes, yet even three months after the last discussion there is still pushing to discuss the conditions separately without the inclusion of new sources to justify re-opening the decision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) WLU has asked me for clarification on my talkpage but not provided content diffs yet. I copy here my response. - WLU if I understand you correctly you said that Guido's userpage describing his "experiment" had somehow sullied your contribution to wikipedia. I saw this as an illogical inference. I look forward to you providing content diffs where you feel Guido has damaged wikipedia. Since you have made the claim I think the onus is on you to provide the evidence rather than ask me to read archives. As I said, I'm quite capable of analysing the diffs you might provide.Mccready (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that Guido has already been blocked 7 times? I don't see how you can argue someone is not being disruptive when they have been blocked seven times. --Smashville^talk 18:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

People can well be blocked and banned for other things than bad content edits, so this oppose seems to me a strawman argument. But anyway, his latest two content edits are the removal of a pdf from the IPCC as POV and not related to the paragraph in an article about global cooling[36], and then to tag the preceding, directly related line as being OR and needing a source.[37] Logically, this has been swiftly reverted by an hitherto uninvolved editor[38]. Of course these edits are not blockable or bannable on their own, far from it, but at least this one it can not be said that he hasn't made any bad content edits... Adding a COI source[39] (Guido was part of the supervising committee for this report) is also frowned upon, and Guido had ran into trouble with similar COI edits earlier. The same source was added elsewhere as well[40]. Removing an "unsourced argument"[41] which has previously in the article been sourced fully (and is even in the very first sentence of the lead, "of uncertain causation") is not a particularly good content edit either. But the problem is not so much the actual article edits, but the cooperation with other editors and the general behavioral pattern. Fram (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Users actions over the last day indicate his sole purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia, whether it be the retaliatory MfD, the reposting of material against consensus, the forum shopping, etc. I've also never seen anyone get so riled up about not being blocked for 3RR (I didn't want to escalate the situation). It's extremely clear he has no intentions of ever working collaboratively...and I expect a long string of unblock requests with wild accusations and quite possibly legal threats after the block is made. --Smashville^talk 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Strong support ban for the reasons given, but mainly for the general disruption to the goal of the project. The number of edits this user makes to mainspace (less than 800, but many have been reverted) are vastly outweighed by the disruption and time wasted by these and other activities, as proven by his "experiment" and block log, and the huge catalogue of disruption, evidenced by WLUs sterling work. Verbal chat 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban: Guido has been disrupting Wikipedia for ages, and I believe he's already banned at nl-wiki. He has the results of his experiment, so he can leave us alone now, and stop trolling. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  I am not banned at nl:Wikipedia. Also, it is not my experiment. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have, and in the past, thought that activities on other wikis aren't really applicable here; different rules, different community. I would rather he be blocked or banned based on his disruption of this community than on his activities on another. My opinion, I think nl.wiki should be kept away from this discussion - apologies Dendodge, I agree with the result but I think the process is better if kept clearly on this site alone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional support - based upon initial review here; however, a deeper analysis is needed for the prospect of banning - so I will return soon. Caulde 19:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose ban: I disagree with Franamax's belief that Guido's "statements carry a strong connotation that he regards us as a bunch of fools, to be experimented on at will." Guido is not conducting the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment--both of which were conducted by Ivy-League researchers, and both of which seriously messed up some of their participants. What I sense here, in the opposition to Guido's efforts, is a post-Milgram, post-Stanford aversion to being "guinea pigs" in someone else's activities--an aversion that allows people to overlook the prosocial intentions of any sensible "social experiment." What I sense in Guido's efforts is a benign attempt to understand and improve the encyclopedia; indeed, he has explicitly offered suggestions for improvement. Sure, his approach is a bit peculiar, and it doesn't amount to directly building the encyclopedia. But the same thing could be said of ANI itself; like his experiment, ANI provides an occasionally dramatic, occasionally enlightening detour through the politics, policies, and polis of the project. ANI, AIV, AfD, RfA, talk pages of various sorts, even MfD--these all might be said to be "social experiments," which Guido is only supplementing. Which leads me to another point. The phrase, "social experiment" is being tossed around a lot, probably because it's a post-Milgram, post-Stanford buzz word with negative connotations, but Guido's initial use of the term was in reference not to his study of Wikipedia, but to Wikipedia itself: "Wikipedia is a social experiment to test the behaviour of human beings in a new, open-door environment with rudimentary government." I'm not sure that I find this description of Wikipedia to be very helpful--after all, what is human life but a massive series of "social experiments"? But I maintain that Guido's efforts are no less "experimental" than ANI itself, and are at the very least more organized. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of what relevance is this comment? You don't appear to have endorsed nor opposed the prospect of a ban. Caulde 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The comment is a defense of the activities for which a ban was proposed in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • The ridiculous "experiment" (which has results will have no validity do to the poor methodology) is only one small aspect of a long history of blocks, threats, edit warring, and disruption. If it was, and Guido is, benign why has he been blocked so often, why has he been so disruptive? Verbal chat 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just found this continuation discussion; nobody thought of informing me. There seem to be several misunderstandings here, the most obvious one that the 'social experiment' in the title of my report would be my experiment. It is not, I have merely filed a report. Cosmic Latte hits the nail right on the head. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean no one notified you of the thread? You started it. --Smashville^talk 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Guido: according to the deleted content on your user page it is your experiment. You say "The six volunteers, all published researchers, were asked to work on the project in areas of their expertise. Three were to declare their expertise openly, three to keep silent. Instructions for attitude ranged from timid and cooperative to firm and leading, where I was asked to vary between episodes of editing, as well as to indicate vulnerability. We were all furthermore asked to test how a range of policies were functioning in practice, without (purposely) breaking them.". Clearly if you are one of 6 volunteers then it is your experiment, and not just a "social experiment" that you are commenting on. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support The most concerning aspect of Guido's behavior, in my mind, has been his repeated legal threats[42][43], which he seems to have used as a bludgeon involving his ban from the Dutch wikipedia. He was blocked, and somewhat inexplicably unblocked, twice for separate legal threats. At no point did he withdraw the threats on-wiki, but claimed after an interval of several days that his legal action had "been concluded"[44] and therefore he should be unblocked. IMO this is against the spirit, but perhaps not the wording, of WP:NLT since he is using (and then quasi-retracting) threats in his rather complicated dispute with Dutch wikipedia. I now suspect the legal threats were part of his breaching experiments designed to test policies while barely skirting overt violations. Even if you ignore the NLT concerns, he is clearly unable to work productively with other editors, and repeated, escalating blocks to this effect have not deterred his behavior. Skinwalker (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  I have not made any legal threats (see below). Also, I have no dispute with the Dutch Wikipedia other than the violation of my author rights; I have productively worked with them in other areas. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose On the basis that I don't like water-cooler ban discussions. We shouldn't make it practice to hold a vote on which editors piss us off. That being said, I do think Guido is being disruptive, stubborn and unhelpful and I understand the clear frustration. I also can't morally justify my position against all responses. Perhaps this is different than if I pulled the trigger and indeffed Guido and then we had a ban discussion. Perhaps that is splitting hairs. But I don't like getting into this practice. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite in favour of parking this whole thing, giving me a chance to assemble a readable evidence page, then transferring it to WP:AN for a more measured discussion; I've repeatedly said I think this is premature and there's more value to a solid discussion that has clearer evidence. Is there an {{on hold}} for ANI? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is here so we can build an encyclopedia. That people will abuse the social aspects for their own entertainment or curiosity is bound to happen, but should not be supported. I honestly find it laughable that anyone would commission such a study, especially for the UN, and the (deleted) synopsis on GdB's userspace is more of a well-written troll than an honest summary of a research paper. This user has either played an elaborate prank on all of us for his own entertainment, or abused all of our processes in the name of flawed research. Either way, it is very disruptive behavior, and not welcome on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are a lot of allegations here that I want to respond to, but I cannot possibly keep up with the speed and volume. So please, do this in a proper manner, and allow me a fair hearing. If you make an allegation, provide diffs, so that I can see what you're talking about. I'm just as bad at guessing other people's thought processes as anyone else. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Also, to do this right, invite users that have worked with me (rather than against me) to give their view as well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• support - I've watched this stuff, and my conclusion is that Guido is an immense amount of trouble for somewhere between no and little gain. The "report" doesn't exist, and neither does the experiment: both are transparent attention-seeking trivia and should be ignored William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Haven't we had enough? Legal threats? Disruption? Using this place as a social experiment. It's just getting ridiculous OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per reasons stated by Protonk. I'd like to add that next to blocks, the editor has had several unblocks as well I'm guessing because the blocks were found baseless. I'm of the opinion that the editor is being mercilessly picked on and ganged up on by a group of wikipedians. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• He was unblocked twice because he dropped the legal actions he threatened. It had nothing to do with "baselessness". None of the five other blocks were lifted. --Smashville^talk 21:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop spreading false information. I have never threatened anyone, legally or otherwise, and I have not dropped any legal actions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's not false information. You were blocked twice for violating WP:NLT. One was removed because you said "my legal action has been concluded" and the other was removed because you agreed to quit bringing them up on Wikipedia. --Smashville^talk 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Which is completely different from what you claimed. The title of WP:NLT is misleading; it's not only about threats. Also, please consider that my legal action may have been very justified. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it's exactly what I claimed, which is why I provided you with the diffs. I'm sorry if I confused "dropping" with "concluded". That's not the important part... --Smashville^talk 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You claim that I made legal threats, which is a lie, and that I dropped legal actions, which is another lie. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a lie. I apparently misunderstand the situation where you violated WP:NLT and were blocked for a month. Would you care to explain? --Smashville^talk 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you categorize this? "I am not available at the moment on this wiki. The reason is that I am bringing charges involving another Wikipedian for hacking and sabotage. This will probably take no more than a couple of days. For urgent matters, contact me at meta or use email. I apologize for the inconvenience." (see this diff) Hermione1980 23:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That is following policy. If you initiate legal action against another user, policy requires that you do not edit until the action has been concluded (or aborted). A threat is when you say "if you don't do as I want, then I will sue" or something to that effect. Threats are not allowed. Legal action is, but you have to refrain from editing as a precaution. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you did violate WP:NLT, despite calling me a liar for saying you did. --Smashville^talk 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not violate it, I followed it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the disagreement between Smashville and Guido is an interpretation of WP:NLT. It seems to me that Guido believes that NLT refers only to editing while legal action is ongoing. Am I correct, Guido, or is there something else I'm missing? Hermione1980 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT is a very confusing page (it appears) because it tries to address two entirely different things, and has a misleading title (see also its talk page). It refers both to legal threats and to legal action. Most of the time, however, legal threats don't lead to legal action, and legal action is not preceded by legal threats. Imagine, for instance, that someone announces that he is coming to your house to get you. You won't be responding with "if you do that, I'll sue"; instead (if you believe it is a real danger) you will immediately alert the police. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We have gotten so far off base is. The point is, contrary to Cheers Dude's assertion, the block was warranted. --Smashville^talk 00:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have. Instead, this is more like things should be discussed. No, a block is not warranted. The policy does not say that you should be blocked for the duration, only that you should not edit. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It says it all over the place. "However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels," is the third sentence. Or the second sentence of the third paragraph, "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Regardless, you have been blocked for it twice. Right now is not the time for you to argue the merits of a policy. --Smashville^talk 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read again. Your quotes support precisely what I say. The third sentence applies here, but not the third paragraph, since that deals only with legal threats which I did not make. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, now isn't the time for discussing the merits of a policy. --Smashville^talk 00:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say this is as good a time as any, since without an explanation you don't seem to understand the policy very well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I count eight separate blocks. Five blocks were served in full. One was reversed two hours later. One indef block for legal threats was lifted about a month later, another was lifted four days later. All other blocks/unblocks were either to change the length of time served or, in one case, to reverse the e-mail block. I have compiled a list of these arranged from earliest to most recent which I can post, if requested. Note: I have no history with this user, and therefore no knowledge of any actual or assumed legal threats. I only know what is posted on the block log. Hermione1980 22:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Hermione. Also note that most blocks were by one and the same admin, who has a content dispute with me and ignored several requests by others to withdraw from my case. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - Wikipedia is a online Encyclopedia, and as such the editors should be here to improve or contribute constructively to building and maintaining it. Guido_den_Broeder has not done either, and instead used it as his personal play ground in which to conduct inappropriate "social experiments." Just like Myspace, there are plenty of other creative web sites out there that Guido_den_Broeder can participate in but Wikipedia should no longer be one of them. Why do we waste so much time dealing with such clearly disruptive users, when common sense would dictate that we just remove the disruption and continue on with the productive work that every other Wikipedian is able to do. I can not even count the number of AN/I threads, blocks, and unblocks that have accumulated as a result of Guido_den_Broeder's behavior and I am not too sure why we continue it to happen. I say we show him the door, enough is enough. Tiptoety ^talk 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  Probably because due process requires that you provide evidence. So far, nobody has produced even a single diff to a disruptive encyclopedic edit. Merely stating that a user is disruptive or is no asset to the project does not settle anything, as is proven exactly by the numer of procedures which are all pretty much identical: a lot is claimed, but nothing is substantiated. This is not a vote. Give WLU the opportunity to present his evidence and judge after we've seen and discussed it, not before. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• First off your block log alone is evidence enough, along with all the multiple AN/I threads. Second, I never stated this was a !vote. Tiptoety ^talk 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you think it's evidence, by all means present it, and we can discuss. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs were supplied by yourself when you began the discussion: User talk:WLU/RFC. CIreland (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• But diffs of what? So far nobody has claimed any of these diffs as evidence. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? --Smashville^talk 01:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also worth counting is the number of admins who declined unblock request - each is another admin who reviewed the block and believed it was justified. I think there were three unblock requests per block, making it a total of perhaps, 24 endorsements plus the eight original (estimates); Guido has blanked his talk page a lot, making it hard to review the unblock requests sometimes, and in other cases to see comments by other editors. Of note are these versions right before a blanking - [45] from me

Diffs of Guido's talk page when comments are removed during October block - [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (and I'm still concerned about civility), [52], also note in particular the conditions Guido asks for for his unblock here (redundant to previous links), which not only misrepresents the blocking admin's position, it also ignores all the block reviews and asks essentially the impossible, if not downright unfair - that his blocklog be cleaned out. Why would this happen? Everyone else lives with their logs, and the blocks were not overturned, people agreed they were justified in principle (possible exception of first). Also note the sometimes bewildering statements by Guido, such as an apparent self-imposed 1RR restriction, and this statement which kinda stunned me given the continuous push for separate pages for ME and CFS. As well as the comment that he wasn't aware of this ANI discussion, which he started. talk page discussions tend to get long, confusing and complicated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, we have a bunch of diffs now. Can you explain what they are supposed to show? How does keeping my talk page short disrupt the encyclopedia - has it hindered you to edit articles in any way? Why should we be concerned about your occasional bewilderment? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge an admin to close this discussion before it continues beyond the point of absurdity. There is clear consensus to community ban GbD. Skinwalker (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we in a hurry? Can't we wait for people who have been working with me (and are not even aware of this thread yet) to provide their comments? For the outcome of the checkuser that has been requested? For me to have a chance to address the issues that have been raised? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't diffs, they were permalinks - now they're diffs. Also note that these aren't comprehensive by any means, this is just from one block during October. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You fail to explain why you brought them up. You claim that I am a disruptive editor. You have been asked multiple times to provide evidence for that, but so far we get nothing. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Ban The Editor's recent behavior (edit warring on his Userpage to keep the "Wikipedia Experiment" article that was deleted) and his past behavior (see his block log), and his behavior here on ANI give me little hope that he is understands or is willing to understand and to comply with the spirit of Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. In this light I think that it is unlikely that his disruptive editing style will change. In short, he seems to be far more trouble than he is worth. CharonX/talk 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  You can't WP:EDITWAR on your own user page. Please provide evidence of where I am supposed to have violated a policy (in a manner that warrants a ban, that is, nobody is perfect). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  You keep adding something to your page that is deemed not appropiate to be there by a large number of people. They remove it, you keep readding it. Ok, you have a point, its not WP:EDITWAR, its WP:DISRUPT. CharonX/talk 11:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Guido's block log on the Dutch Wikipedia. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, but why do you bring it up? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Smashville and the rest of the community, I beseech you all to give Guido another chance. =( Despite what all the conflicts are, I think he means well. I think the trouble here is in his dispute resolutions. If only we could compromise and figure out ways to make everyone happy. From what I see, there is some kind of page discussing the user about how lot's of people feel he is disruptive. Despite this being permissible by the rules, I think it has the ability to hurt the feelings for the SINGLE person on the receiving end. Again, I just don't know if banning is the answer. Thank you all for giving your opinions but please give this editor another chance. There are a lot of hurt feelings here! What can a little love hurt all? Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• His experiment while arguably disruptive did add some new content. The most serious disruption we've had from him has been in the last few days has been his attempts to restore the details of his experiment to his user page (it isn't completely clear to me why it was deleted given that the report itself is in no way disruptive). I'd be inclined to put him on a very tight leash rather than ban and keep careful track. Let it be clear then that this is absolutely his last chance on this project. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you JoshuaZ =D That is so nice of you! :D Cheers dude (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but allegations have been made. I wish to see evidence, so that I have a fair chance to improve my behaviour, or to see them withdrawn. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! Guido, I think you should just drop it and promise everyone you will change your ways if given another chance. I also advise you to learn how to get along with others as editing wikipedia has a lot to do with teamwork.Cheers dude (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider this - Guido is currently under a self-imposed 1RR (like a three revert rule, but only voluntarily binding and for only one revert). Despite that, there's a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#WLU_reported_by_Guido_den_Broeder_.28Result:_Page_Protected_3_Days.29 3rr question, and his previous block was for 3RR and he got another one a month later ([53]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido, what's this about [54] after my comment. You seem to just want to argue with everyone about every dispute you have and accusation made against you. At that rate, you will be here all day. A lot of people have concerns. You should just work on changing your behavior since it may be ok in your mind, but it's not ok in a lot of other people's minds. Being argumentative and opinionated isn't the answer. Cheers dude (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a lot of the reason why people are upset with him and consider him a detriment to the project. He's been getting suggestions like that for a while - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder, and most of the stuff in this section.

Note to everyone - I think this posting would have been better had I the time to assemble the evidence in a more readable format, but since it's started, I thought it only fair to alert everyone on his Respected Wikipedians list of the discussion, via talk page and e-mail. I've also alerted a couple people who showed initial interest in the RFC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your comment yet.

Please understand, that while a lot of users have involved themselves in this thread in a negative way, none of them has any experience working with me. They are in no way a fair representation. The users that have worked with me on articles have not been invited to comment and know nothing of what is happening here.

That said, I am always willing to promise to try and improve my ways though, and do promise this again. Let's hope we can all learn from this. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Well, I am not sure what they will decide but I hope I have been of service to you, Guido. By the way, it's nice to know who you respect around here. Bye! Cheers dude (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Cheers dude! Note that said list is not my list of friends, which would be a lot longer. It lists people with an insight in Wikipedia that I respect. There are a few more names to add now, as soon as I am allowed to edit the paga again. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Cheers man! Good luck! Cheers dude (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido - based on this AN discussion, do you think there is a problem with your conduct? Do you think others believe there is a problem with your conduct? Will you try to work with other editors and respect when the consensus of a page is against you? Do you understand what a 3RR is? Are you willing to share a copy of your report? Also, for editors who have worked with you - me, OrangeMarlin, Fram, Crohnie, Verbal, William M. Connolley. Do you think you have managed to run into a non-random sample of editors, and everyone else would be reasonable if you were given the chance? Do you think you got all the bad admins reviewing your blocks? Do you think that there is perhaps a problem with, if not your contributions, then how you make them? Do you think that you are completely the victim of an unfair process and everything on my sub-page is spurious, based on no-one else understanding the policies and guidelines properly like you do? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Further disruption

Per WP:DRV#User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment, GdB restored the content of this deleted page to his User page while a DRV was ongoing. When that was deleted, he then decided to forum-shop and went straight to Jimbo. That, combined with the Wikilawyering and obstinate refusal to accept that GdB has done anything wrong above, shows that GdB has no consideration for Wikipedia's processes or consensus. Do we really need to debate this further? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for commenting TheHandThatFeedsYou! =( Aw no! Come on. Please fellow wikipedians! Give Guido another shot. Judging by his final comments, I think he'll change. Because these concerns were addressed to him from a friend, I believe that made him realize that he got to wikipedians. When it comes from a friend, I think people are inclined to take criticism more seriously. I think Guido will contribute wonderfully if given another shot. What do you all say? Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been given numerous 'one more' chances. He has shown that he doesn't give a damn about the norms in this community; the forumshopping and refusal to abide by overwhelming deletion consensus are just the latest example. // roux   06:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Roux! =D You make valid points that I really can't argue with! Perhaps having a friend on wikipedia will help this user. Maybe I could explain to him other editor's viewpoints and if he would work less on trying to get his own way, but coming to agreements and not being so stubborn. You can all blame me if this doesn't work, but I believe in the editor. If he gets stubborn, I won't defend him anymore if you don't want him to edit wikipedia as much as he probably loves it! :) Cheers dude (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with roux here - Guido has been given many chances. Each block that expires is one more chance. At some point there is a WP:SPADE issue. Cheers dude, you've had only one real interaction with Guido, and he was supporting your position for 3RR, a concept he has consistently failed to give an impression he understands in the same way much of the community does. He has also rejected the thought of having a mentor. He's not a new user (contributions go back to March, 2007, and there's 4000 of them). User:Crohnie has very patiently and very sympathetically tried explaining things to him, as have many other editors (some with less patience than others). Have you really reviewed his contributions? Have you tried working with (or more importantly) against him? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel Guido den Broeder has completely exhausted the patience of many editors, including me - I see nother other option but to show Guido den Broeder the door.

• I have not followed this discussion, and I have never edited an article with Guido den Broeder. I have seen some of his comments in discussions on the Village Pump, and found those comments will thought out and insightful....and I noted that those comments seemed to differ from the majority views in interesting ways. I do not understand the details of the controversies that relate to his ban, but the process I see on the AN/I discussion impresses me as the lynching of a user who has made himself unpopular by criticising majority views with intelligence, an intelligence applied in pointed argument. I have not see this,mob rule, side of Wikipedia previously, and regret seeing it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: ban

This has gone on long enough, the consensus is ban, so I'm doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved admin, I have declined an unblock request, finding that the above discussion does indeed currently constitute an adequate consensus for a community ban.  Sandstein  11:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, I will try to be compiling a readable, hopefully clearer, version of the evidence. As this will almost certainly end up in arbitration, it'll probably be needed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested in seeing what the deal is, as this is all rather hard to follow, other than the observation that the complaining user engages in constant wikilawyering, and looks to have "Plaxicoed" himself here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the relevant links below, and User talk:WLU/RFC provides further evidence. seicer | talk | contribs 12:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's missing (or I'm not seeing it) is the content that got deleted, so all I can tell is the inferences about it. But there's a deja vu here, as I've seen many times where someone puts something disruptive in a sub-page and then spends a lot of time wikilawyering that it's somehow "harmless", or is a work-in-progress for an arbitration claim or something, or is otherwise supposed to be untouchable. The right way to handle something like that is simply to keep it on his own PC until he's ready to post it for real. But then he wouldn't be able to create any wikidrama and try to game the system, now would he? Sounds to me like the indef-block was well-justified - as often happens in the cases like I just described. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There is no consensus for a ban - a significant proportion of commentators have not agreed. This discussion has failed to focus properly on content which is the raison detre of wikipedia. The "experiment" is irrelevant. Fram has posted one content diff with possible weight (removal of IPCC Chapter 9 link[55]. However the link to Chapter 5 remained and the IPCC evidence was quoted. The edit also removed a silly statement.) The CFS diff Fram posted has no weight because it was rightly removing redundant material[56]. WLU and Seicer, despite being invited to do so have not supplied any content diffs which showed damage to the project. The "decision" to ban was taken too soon. The discussion should have focused on content. I oppose it and recommend it be altered until consensus emerges.Mccready (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See also

See also:

• WP:ANI#Improper use of MfD page?
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#Attack page
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#User page
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment
• Wikipedia:DRV#User:Guido den Broeder.2FWikipedia.2C the Social Experiment
• User_talk:Rlevse#Request for CU check seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)

Resolved

 – Pages semi-protected.Kralizec! (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous User, using a a variety of IP addresses, has been vandalizing Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) for several days now. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)&action=history. They somehow feel that Template:LGBTProject is "A project with a socio-political agenda introduces POV to the article." The same person has also been removing LGBT content from Traditional marriage movement. This has been going on since at least December 10. Is there a possibility of a range block on these various IPs? They all resolve to Qwest Communications Corporation in Minneapolis. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not request for temporary page protection? Much faster. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This particular editor has reappeared for the third night in a row. How long do you think temporary page protection would last? I'd say a week for the first shot, maybe. To have him reappear again? Would it not be more efficient to look into this now? --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the same editor at work (and AGF'd at first, only to be blown off), and agree some sort of block is in order. Not sure how easy it is to do a range of IP's. Another possibility is semiprotection of the relevant pages for a month or three, or longer. Seems like some controversial pages stay semiprotected forever, and that's not a bad solution, imo. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 00:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The above article and both talk pages have been semi-protected for two weeks. However, considering this extremely persistent anonymous editor (to be honest, the IP acts like an agent provocateur from Conservapedia) has described the pages in question as being part of the "battlefield in the culture war" [57], I suspect that a significantly longer duration will ultimately be needed. (We will soon see, as the semi-protection on California Proposition 8 (2008) article expires this weekend.) --Kralizec! (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, that "battlefield" comment seemed to portend a longish jihad on that editor's part. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 02:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Threat from User:Longterm

Resolved

I tagged his blog for CSD with huggle and he replaced the tag with the line, "Rule 1: Destroy my page and I destroy you." He also has 6 warnings on his talk page. For that I would like to request an admin willing to make difficult blocks to indefinately block this user. I think it may even warrent banning.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The only deleted page I can find, Mr. Mysterious's Blog, actually says:

1. Destroy my page and you destroy me.

2. Do not disobey rule #1.

which is not a threat at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

However a look at Special:Contributions/Longterm shows a "long term" pattern of virtually nothing but vandalism and junk edits. My guess is that this editor is about 12 years old. Looie496 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Sasquatch t|c 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call, nothing but trouble. Ipatrol, you turned out to be mostly right, but you still need to be more careful in the future; immature vandalism and threats of violence are both indef-blockable offenses, but one is a great deal more serious than the other. While many editors have matured, been accepted back, and gone on to productive careers after the first, the second is likely to be a de-facto permaban. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:

• Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deja... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminding me of one of my favourite phrases of the now: "Deja-moo: the feeling you've heard this bull before". Guy (Help!) 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User: TTN blanking pages after discussion says KEEP

Resolved

 – Merges restored by Kww, move along, nothing to see here.

The user User:TTN likes to nominate articles about fiction for deletion. While it's a legitimate thing to nominate minor articles for review, the problem is his seming disreguard for the results of the nomination. He nomimated the articles Motormaster and Override (Transformers) for deletion recently, and after talks, the concensus was "KEEP" on those two. Despite it being posted that they were to be kept, he blanked the pages, and then redirected them to simple "list of characters" pages. I just reverted his blankings. I wouldn't mind a simple warning or official messsage going to him to not do this, if some moderator would do so. I understand where he is coming from, but you have to follow the rules and procedures, and I think he purposely ignored them. Mathewignash (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• The close on the AfD debate for Override (Transformers) was ridiculous. Eusebeus (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not really, no, I think it was an accurate summary. Deletion: no, therefore back to the editorial community. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's a pretty slanted description: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motormaster clearly said merge, as did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Override (Transformers), and the closing admin in both cases said that merge was a permissible outcome.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do people always come directly here despite not requiring an admin? Both were closed with the rational that merging should take place separate from the AfD, which is very unnecessary, so I merged them. Now that they have been reverted, I am stuck in a annoying loop where I have to gain a new consensus, despite the fact that Mathewignash is the only person who care about these crufty articles, which is why I nominated them in the first place. TTN (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Any objection to closing this drama magnet? I see nothing to be gained besides more mud slinging, and this discussion should properly be happening elsewhere. I will not comment on the validity of the position of either side in this debate, except to say that I am psychicly weary of having to deal with this shit every few weeks or so. I don't really care one way or the other, I just don't think we need to keep going through this endless cycle and dragging out all of the same old tired arguements and tactics here... PLEASE can we close this discussion down?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone report this?

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here.

While reading recent changes the other day I reverted this edit [58] which has been bothering me. It had elements of nonsense but is disturbing and overtly threatening. I'd like to feel able to dismiss it, but my conscience says to report it mostly because I think the user should be in trouble for it. I don't know the best way to report this to the authorities off wiki so if anyone would do that it would be much appreciated. Thanks, DVD 22:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

meh... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just vandalism, reverted and ignored. Black Kite 22:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentence Error on the Main page

Resolved

 – Was correct before this post, my apologizes.

The first couple sentences of the main page reads..."Richard Hawes (1797–1877) was a United States Representative from Kentucky and the second Confederate Governor of Kentucky. Originally a Whig, Hawes became a Democrat following the of the Whig party in the 1850s."

The mistake is in the last sentence: "...Hawes became a Democrat following the of the Whig party in the 1850s."

Someone might want to go in and fix that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 20, 2008 @ 00:31

Seems it was fixed before you posted here. Try this link to purge. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Well, that was quickly resolved :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 20, 2008 @ 00:40

User:Sarvagnya's removal of talk page contents!

Could someone explain to me or to the person who removed these, these and these contents. The reason given was "rm vios of WP:TALK and abuse of the talk page... this is not a personal scratchpad". Docku: What up? 05:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it "abuse" of the talk page, but as I read it, I wasn't sure what the point of it was--that info can be found by examining old diffs. It looks like somebody is collating info for some sort of argument/discussion/debate, possibly about something in the history or the naming or the editing of the article--in which case it DOESN'T belong on the talk page of the article, but on a userpage instead--in fact, I'd venture to say it belongs there regardless of WHAT it's for. Now, having said that: have you ASKED Sarvagnya why it was removed? GJC 06:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi GJC, I just noticed this. I'm the person who had made the posts that were removed. Yes, I did leave messages for user:Sarvagnya both on his talk page and the article talk page. Here is one of those posts: Please explain removal of content. He hasn't replied to either post yet, but it is certainly possible that he hasn't seen them yet. Well, since you are here and answering questions, I might as well ask you the same questions.

I made the posts because I believe a controversial page move was made without previous or concurrent discussion on the talk page and without requesting a move. When I attempted to revert the page move, user:Sarvagnya reverted my revert somewhat peremptorily. The page in question, whose new name is Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE, and which was formerly called Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, is the mother page of the literature section of an article, Kingdom of Mysore, currently in FAR (see here). The "Kannada literature" page has had four page moves, the last one—which I consider controversial—on December 16. It is being prepped for an FA drive itself and is also undergoing a peer review; furthermore, the page was given its previous and longest-lasting page name in this edit of 12:54 13 October 2007, which cited "consistency with other Kingdom of Mysore sub-articles." Both user:Sarvagnya and user:Dineshkannambadi (the primary author) are now pooh-poohing this "consistency," and neither has replied to my post about it in the FAR (please scroll to the end of the FAR link above and read my post #12). Caught in this impasse, I was attempting to state on the talk page why I considered the page moves controversial, as a prelude to making posts at WP:Request move to ask an admin to look into it.

If you, GJC, think the record itself belongs to my user page, I'm happy to move it there; however, I still need to make a post on the "Kannada literature" talk page, asking the authors why—in light of the evidence I have—they didn't go through the proper page-move protocols. Should I go ahead and make those posts (with links to my user subpage)? Finally, doesn't WP:TALK also say: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was neither vandalism nor personal essay, it was 100% related to the article. Is someone allowed to remove talk page contents because they do not agree with them? Docku: What up? 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. That's practically the main idea of WP:TALK. Again, though, I think we'd better wait to hear from Sarvagnya before we make any conclusions...GJC 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now moved the evidence to a user subpage of mine and refactored the original posts in the form of questions; see here. We will have to wait and see if user:Sarvagna chooses to revert these as well. I do agree that the posts read better when the evidence is in the subpage, so one of my questions above is somewhat moot now. I would still like an answer to my second question above about striking out the comments of others. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a better place for this info, and it has the added advantage of being in your own space, where (for the most part, and with certain narrow exceptions) it's safe from being reverted/removed. If User:Sarvagnya chooses to revert THERE--well, then we've got an issue--but I highly doubt that will happen. GJC 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, in my previous interactions with User:Sarvagnya, he chose not to respond when reported for incivility or talk page violations. I can dig up and present those evidences if needed. I would not be surprised if he doesnt respond at all again. Docku: What up? 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Those posts violated almost every single injunction listed here. First, the posts made no attempt to "communicate". No questions were asked (forget about being friendly or courteous) of anybody. Instead, what it came across as was that user:F&f had mistaken the article's talk page for his own subpage.

Secondly, the posts strayed from the topic and included any and sundry information about things irrelevant to article. This of course, served not merely as a rather disingenuous attempt to sway others' opinion but also to insult the intelligence of other editors who could not help but note the unabashed use of every trick in the book - including but not limited to the oldest one in the book.

Thirdly, the posts were anything but "Be positive". An article talk page - WP:TALK tells us - is meant to discuss ways of "improving" an article... not to criticize or pick apart the 'current status'(real or imagined) of an article.

The posts go on to violate each of the other injunctions too - if only in differing degrees and ways. And of course, each of the posts also betray the fact that the author's never heard of "Be concise or risk being ignored".

In short, the posts were meant and served only to inflame things without making the slightest attempt at engendering constructive conversation and debate. And per the third bullet here -"..Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages) - editors have the license and freedom to remove posts that violate the "How-to"s described further up on the same page.

And GJC, I wouldn't call it "abuse" either - if it didn't happen with such alarming frequency. This is not the first time that I've noticed user:F&f abusing talk pages and processes in this way. Also, the posts I removed are only different strains of similar concoctions on other pages. Editors cannot be expected to take him seriously if they have to keep grappling with and answering the same 'questions' on every talk page.

---

PS: It should be pointed out here that I was not alone in removing those posts. Though I had not noticed it at the time, I now notice that even User:Dineshkannambadi - a veteran editor of the WP:INDIA project also took exception to the posts and had removed it - even calling it "trolling" - before he was reverted by user:Docku (an incident user:Docku seems to have neglected to mention in this filing).

Also, it bears being pointed out that this AN/I was filed by user:Docku without bothering to so much as ask me for my reasons. Sure, I did notice this morning that user:F&f had dropped by last night to leave me a note asking for an explanation.. but the only note I got from user:Docku was the one that informed me of this discussion here. I could also not help but notice that this ANI was filed before I even had the opportunity to see F&f's note or respond - again an abuse of process.

Thirdly, I hold that even this is a vio of WP:TALK and request that it be removed. The article talk page is not my talk page and questions directed to me which have nothing to do with the article should not be lying on that talk page. Sarvagnya 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't attempt to comment on the first two points--I'm looking to discuss them with another admin first--but I find your third point--that messages addressed to a specific user should not be on the talkpage--to be needlessly strict. If the other user is asking questions re: your actions with regard to a specific article, those questions are equally relevant whether they're on the article's talk page, or your personal talk page. More later, after I find someone else to discuss this with. GJC 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my third point. I have no problem as long as the post on the talk page has to do with discussing the article or even my edits to the article. Here however, the post does not discuss the article or my edits to the article at all. Sarvagnya 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Writing long messages are just going to confuse people here. Are you really serious Fowler's message violated WP:TALK? A mistake or misunderstanding does not become correct because somebody else also did the same. The issue is that Dinesh removed the contents first, cautioned by me (my edit summary:Pls do not remove genuine talk page contents. next time, you will be reported to relevant notice board) which was meant to everyone (including you) who was later going to do the same thing, you removed it regardless which led to my reporting here. The only reason I did not mention Dinesh here was because he heeded the caution and you didnt. I agree I should have mentioned Dinesh' incidence for better context. Docku: What up? 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, When I had once brought up an issue related to Ant-Hindi agitations, you had once mentioned if it has to do with article content, you take it to the article's talk page.. not an individual editor's talk page which was later called wrong by User:Redvers here. I have no problem discussing issues with you directly, but I am greaty concerned of your understaing of WP:Talk and other guidelines and therefore having any meaningful discussion with you. Docku: What up? 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of his first post above, user:Sarvagnya, refers to "every single injunction" listed in WP:TALK section, how to use article talk pages. My copy of the Complete OED lists "injunction," to be "The action of enjoining or authoritatively directing; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order." Perhaps user:Sarvagnya would like to explain how the guidelines in that section constitute injunctions in the same way that contents of the section Maintain Wikipedia Policy do or the admonition, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. does; furthermore, he still has not explained what part of WP:TALK he used to override the latter admonition.

As I have stated above, I agree that the long posts I initially made (and that user:Sarvagnya removed) best belong to user subpages; however, I will note that that in my two years on Wikipedia and in my over 4,000 talk page edits, the only users, that I can recall, who have content blanked my (article) talk page edits are user:Sarvagnya (primarily) and user:Dineshkannambadi. Furthermore, my talk page edits are not the only ones user:Sarvagnya has blanked; I'm sure if someone looked into this, they will find many other examples. Many of user:Sarvagna's content blankings, in my memory, have been accompanied by affectedly cute edit summaries in which one word of the English language (normally used provocatively) is wiki-linked to some Wikipedia guideline or policy. As you will readily see from this previous example of user:Sarvagnya's content removal or from the contents of this this administrative warning to user:Sarvagnya, wiki-linking "oldest trick in the book," to association fallacy (in his post above) is but a very benign example of this editing style. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The contents Sarvagnya removed and Dinesh called "trolling" are probably one of the rare high quality talk page contents in comparison to messages like this we come across everyday in wikipedia. It is regretful that users who post such messages are blamed for others'inability to comprehend and make relevance of it. Besides, if it is of any relevance, I would also like to point out here that User:Fowler&fowler is a professor. While I also may agree such complex issues could be kept in user subpages and links provided to article talk pages, removing them with same level of respect as one would remove vandalism is borderline vandalism. Well, User:Sarvagnya could have politely asked him to keep those contents in User sub pages and summarise more comprehensivley. Docku: What up? 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya broadly seems to be suggesting that meta-content belongs to article talk pages, but that meta-meta-content to user talk pages. There might be some merit to that rule, but user:Sarvagnya himself seems to have violated it. He made an edit to the article in the form of a page move (content). I then responded to it, very inefficiently of course, by adducing on the talk page evidence for why the page move was controversial (meta-content). However, he then deleted my additions to the talk page. Deletions of talk page content, I claim, constitute meta-meta-content. Unlike deletions of page content, which is normal form of editing content, deletion of talk page content is not a normal form of editing talk pages. I can't, for example, delete someone's talk page comment if I feel it is not well-sourced. Rather, I claim, deletion of talk page content is a form of "supervisory" editing and, consequently, constitutes meta-meta-content. By user:Sarvagnya's own dictum, it should belong to a user talk page; in other words, it should have taken the from of a message on my talk page requesting me to removing the long list from the article talk page to my subpage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I asked fellow admin Redvers to look at this dispute, since he knew more of the background than I did. Here is our conversation, in full; however, his reply is essentially "Nobody's 100% right." Fowler&fowler, if you're going to do that table thing, keep it in your userspace--it's article-related, but only indirectly. Sarvagnya, you don't own the talk page, and what F&F was posting there violated nothing, basically, except your expectations. Those edits--which, as I've said, probably would have been BETTER on his userpage, and the questions BETTER asked on yours--were nonetheless about the article--maybe not the article as it stands RIGHT THIS SECOND, but about a version of the article which was changed and which F&F wanted further information about. It's perfectly valid there. Dinesh, none of the removed info was "trolling". It was an attempt--maybe not the best attempt--to elicit information about why certain changes were made to the article. And to all concerned: the most important policy re: article talk pages is "Leave other users' edits alone." Unless they're BLATANT vandalism or BLP violations--which this was absolutely not--it stays. GJC 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, GJC, for contacting Redvers (thanks, Redvers, for providing an opinion). I pretty much agree with both yours and Redvers takes on this. For my part, I'm now going to be doing all my "back office work," as it were, on a subpage. In fact, since I read your first post above, I've gone around changing other long posts and leaving only links to my subpages. They read much better; the process also forces me to think about the nub of each argument. I have to thank both user:Sarvagnya for reverting my edits (perhaps not in the best of styles) and user:Docku for bringing it to AN/I; had both events not happened, I wouldn't have learned something new. So, from my perspective, this "incident" is closed and you can check mark that box. However, we probably still need to hear from user:Docku who reported this incident here. Thanks again! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GJC and Redvers. I am not totally statisfied that both Fowler and Sarvagnya seemed to have gotten almost equal treatment here despite my strong feeling Sarvagnya is at greater fault. However, I do appreciate administrators's carefullness to be fair and neutral and not to be harsh or appreciative of any one editor possibly for fear of making a mis-judgement. I am just going to look at the positive side and that if this thread has done anything at all, it would hopefully descipline the way with which user:Sarvagnya communicates with others and if not, I am just going to bring it back here again. Docku: What up? 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Pé de Chinelo. requesting immediate block

Dear Admins. Pé de Chinelo is currently undergoing an RfC ([59]), of which he is fully aware (as he has been editing specific sections of talk pages with warnings to him about it - in the section) and is refusing to comment on the RfC. He has been reminded numerous times but is still making disruptive edits (all listed on the RfC), including blatant POV-pushing, edit warring and even edits bordering on racism, some happening as recently as today - almost 3 weeks after the RfC was opened. It doesn't look as if he is going to change, and I feel that for now, and unless he explains his edits and says he'll stop, he should be banned from editing articles until the end of the complaint/RfC etc process, maybe further.

(also on admins board as not sure where to post, sorry. delete as appropriate) chocobogamer mine 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...vu! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

anyone know if this is being looked into? later reqs have been dealt with but this one hasnt chocobogamer mine 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Popride

• Popride (talk · contribs)
• Popride2 (talk · contribs)
• Popride3 (talk · contribs)
• Popride4 (talk · contribs)
• Popride5 (talk · contribs)

I stumbled across this user while new page patrolling and came across the derivative sock accounts and am unsure how to proceed. Looking at their contributions of all of them they seem to do nothing but write and create hoax articles for non-existent musicians and their non-existent music, which has been going on for some time now. Over all the accounts they have received many upon many warnings but apart from some random edits to Mary J. Blige they continue to work on these hoax articles. Anyone with an idea how to proceed? –– Lid^(Talk) 04:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the fake articles can be deleted as vandalism, the socks can be indefed, and Popride warned to use his one account to do useful work.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF and tell him to stop, and that sockpuppetry is something taken seriously here. (Oh and block the socks, but don't block main yet) VX!^~~~ 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Socks have been tagged and reported to admins... --Mixwell!^Talk 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

68.34.4.143

68.34.4.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some kind of strange obsession with CactusWriter, repetitively creating Wikipedia talk:CactusWriter's Awards. I've nominated it twice under G8. JPG-GR took care of deleting it the first time, an act which was rewarded by a final vandalism warning from 68.34.4.143. He has twice mutilated Kurt Shaped Box's talk page ([60][61]), claiming that Kurt's request to add comments to the bottom of the page violates the Wiki philosophy of allowing anyone to edit. This all seems to be a fallout of trouble that occurred when he was editing as 76.111.64.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where he posted the statement Please Don't Bother me with block messages and warnings, Only CactusWriter | ^needles and Bob the Wikipedian (talk) can ask and leave warnings, I'll be glad to read them 76.111.64.178 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Nathan C., which didn't go over very well.

This version of 76.111.64.178's talk page seems to show an editor below the minimum competence level for having access. Apparently, the seven warnings from CactusWriter created some illusion of a personal relationship.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Shqiperia-illyria

User:Shqiperia-illyria is an Albanian nationalist doing his best to stir up ethnic ill feeling. Despite his multiple vandalistic edits, he has yet to have been warned. I've just left him his first vandal warning. Bears watching. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose they may be better than watchdogs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Snort. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock farm or just POV pushers?

While running a search, I ran across a group of userpages which all contain the same chunk of text, chock full of non-NPOV phrasing and a screed against two Wikipedia users accused of anti-semitism (over a block of other accounts). The text is a copy of this geocities page. This appears to be related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles, which involved some POV pushing on Pan-Arabism. A checkuser case may be appropriate, although these users have not done any editing outside of their userpages. Due to the coordination, we have (at the very least) some coordinated attempt to push PoV, although it's confined to userspace, in a way that doesn't masquerade as an article. (The opening paragraph, which is totally unencyclopedic, makes it quite clear that it's not a Wikipedia article.) I'm not sure if it's a sock farm as well.

The accounts in question:

• User:Gafeeera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Answers and info (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Biased 123 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Edgy2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Pan arabism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Daliagistini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Stayisgood4u (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd block them myself and nuke the userpages, but I'd like to get a wider reaction first, especially since I was not involved in the earlier discussions involving this issue. Horologium (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely get rid of the user pages per WP:NOTWEBHOST. As for blocking them, I'm not sure what's to gain by it. If anyone starts using them it just makes it all the easier to recognise. --fvw* 13:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block him/her or take any aggressive stance whatsoever. I would get rid of all those pages he/she is making however and perhaps strike up a friendly chat with the user on how its not allowed per wikipedia policy and ask them to contribute constructively. Just my opinion! Cheers! =) Cheers dude (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well do it then :-P Theresa Knott | token threats 14:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With some experience of socks/cu elsewhere the userpages would arouse my "interest" to say the least. Agree they should go too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

LoL! I'm shy Therea knott! I'm shy! :P Cheers dude (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the user pages. I've not done anything else at this time, however. Horologium (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Consensus clearly shows topic ban will not be lifted despite ardent attempts at intervention. This thread has no where else to go so archiving for posterity.--VS ^talk 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this topic ban discussion[62].Mccready (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the involved admin--the one who's been working with you all along and knows all the background, etc.--has pretty much already given you an answer, namely: your topic ban still holds; after the first of the year, he'll be back online, and he'll reconsider then. Seems to me like if he wanted you NOT to be topic-banned now, he would have said "No, you're no longer topic-banned." But that's not what he said. Now, if that's not the answer you were hoping for, my apologies; but when you're working with an admin already, and he gives you an answer, and you come looking for another admin to give you a DIFFERENT answer, to me that smacks of admin-shopping. GJC 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With due respect he said he didn't have time to look at it and invited me to seek further review which I have done. To be accused of admin shopping in this circumstance is patently wrong. He also has not considered the block history. I ask an uninvolved admin to look at the facts.

1. The ban was put in place before I had right of reply
2. The block was put in place by an admin who said my block history was an important part of her reasoning but then refused to examine the block history.
3. The block which started this was for edit warring with me placing scientific material on the page.
4. Consider my views[63] and the extremist views of the editor who opposes lifting the ban.[64]
5. Even this extremist acknowledges my edits are generally good; with the exception of those who oppose my scientific viewpoint, nobody has said I am not an asset to wikipedia
6. Despite these facts I have refrained for seven months on an appeal (an appeal I was told could always be made).
7. The VERY simple solution I propose is to lift the ban (it can quickly be reinstated if necessary)

Once again I request someone have a look at this properly.Mccready (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) To save the trouble of going through the archives, here are links to most of the relevant archived discussion involving this editor:

• AN/I discussion of first topic ban by User:FloNight: 12 Sept. 2006
• AN/I: topic ban enacted; 16 Sept. 2006; Mccready notified on talk page: 16 Sept. 2006
• Posted at AN/I: Initial discussion that led to proposal of another topic ban, 28 April 2008
  • Subsection of above: initial discussion of topic ban, 28 April 2008
• AN/I, consensus to topic-ban: 7 May 2008; Mccready notified on talk page: [65], [66], [67]
• Block for canvassing related to above case: 1 May 2008
• AN/I, more recent discussion of topic ban, violation and request to lift: 11 December 2008
• Related to above: checkuser results
• Further discussion at User_talk:Scientizzle#Discussion_missing.
• Finally, block log and talk page are useful: Mccready (talk · contribs · logs · block log).

These should help clarify the background of this case and what various members of the community have said about it. --Jim Butler (t) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler is the editor I referred to above. He is an extremist acupuncturist[68]. I'd be happy to point to the discussion which demonstrates each of my points above, including the critical block log evidence (I've been blocked on more than one occasion by trigger happy admins who apologised). To save time I will not do so at this stage. I ask the question, given my good content edits (this ban started with edit warring which I have apologised for) why not remove the topic ban? It can EASILY be reinstated if necessary. Let me also ask what comes first in solving wikipedia disputes[69]? Mccready (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironic to allude to WP:NPA and then, when I post relevant diffs from previous dispute resolution, reply with an ad hominem attack. --Jim Butler (t) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. (A bit off-topic but amusing.) If I'm an extremist, I guess the World Health Organization is as well. Of course one can disagree with the WHO... but to call them extremist seems a bit... well, you know. --Jim Butler (t) 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so, Mccready, as far as I am concerned the answer is that your topic ban unquestionably still stands, and if you carry on as you are then we will widen it to a full site ban. Long experience shows that you are unable to work productively with people on this, a subject where you have strong personal feelings. You don't seem to have demonstrated an ability to work productively with those who have a different view on other subjects where your feelings are less strong, so the topic ban is not likely to be lifted any time soon. Which is merely to reiterate the state of debate as at yesterday, [70], which for some odd reason appears to have vanished, or maybe that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With due respect Guy I think you are mistaken. Personal feelings don't enter the equation. Good science and good wikipeida articles do. Correct me if I'm wrong but your principal argument is that I am unable to work productively with people with an opposing viewpoint. How many diffs would you require to change your mind? Have you seen the strenuous efforts I have made on the acupuncture talkpage and other talkpages to gain consensus from true believers (often as the lone science editor)? Do you know what my ratio of discussion to mainspace edits is? I also don't understand your threat "carry on as you are". Am I not entitled to be judged on evidence? Am I not entitled to put the evidence? This issue is at root a content dispute about acupuncture with an editor who now insists his claims on acupuncture are supported by WHO. I'd be grateful for your considered response.Mccready (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the WHO and acu efficacy -- read 'em and weep, dude. --Jim Butler (t) 02:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Jim, your tone is unhelpful and you are wrong again. In the WHO listing[71] of diseases starting with "a" alone you claim two conditions (allergies, not just rhinitis and asthma) which you as an acupuncturist claim you can help[72]. Neither are listed by WHO. I won't go through the rest of the alphabet, but readers can check out the evidence and see for themselves what I am up against here.Mccready (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My off-wiki list is completely irrelevant. The issue isn't me, the issue is your editing and topic ban.

Above, you said "with the exception of those who oppose my scientific viewpoint, nobody has said I am not an asset to wikipedia". That's false. As I wrote on AN/I on 27 April 2008, regarding essentially the same assertion you made at the time:

"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben [73], Eldereft [74], Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin [75][76], Friday [77], Jefffire [78], and Arthur Rubin [79]. And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.

True then, still true now. --Jim Butler (t) 04:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Past criticisms have been acknowledged and do not equal a conclusion that the topic ban should remain, or do you presume to speak for the above editors on this topic. Interesting that having said your acupuncture list was supported by the WHO list you now claim, after I point out your error, that it's not relevant.Mccready (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Past criticisms have been acknowledged"? You just got through denying that they existed, other than from those who "oppose (your) scientific viewpoint". Rebutting your false statements (about the record on-wiki and off) is like playing whack-a-mole. Or WP:SOUP. For the record, my off-wiki list about acupuncture is irrelevant, and you are wrong about it; the reasons are explained here (stable version here).

This editor's topic ban is, his protestations to the contrary, not about a content dispute with me (though that's one of the many things that started it; ironically, in the end, the "pro-science" editors were taking my side in his repetitive edit warring). It's about this editor's tendentious editing and general lack of respect for WP rules of the road. Since there isn't much reason to perpetuate cycles of WP:SOUP and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I do need to disengage. The record above is clear enough. Ciao. --Jim Butler (t) 10:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• First off, I will tell you right now, in the interest of transparency, that I personally have no intention whatsoever of removing this topic ban, either now or in the future. This has nothing to do with the evidence laid out by either side, EXCEPT that the sheer quantity of evidence makes it clear to me that the history of this situation is quite involved and intricate. Under those circumstances I don't feel it's my place to be making such decisions--and DEFINITELY not without consulting with Scientizzle, which sets the time back to "first of the year" again. Having said that, however: What, exactly, is so urgent that this topic ban MUST be removed RIGHT NOW, when the admin who has the most background on this issue has stated that he will be back in less than two weeks? There is no deadline. Wikipedia will still be here when Scientizzle comes back; the topic in question will still be there--why are you so adamant about removing the topic ban RIGHT NOW?? GJC 08:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Gladys. I appreciate the time you have devoted to this. The reason I asked you to respond is that you made more than one error when you accused me of forum shopping and I thought that as a responsible admin you would take time to examine the issue and act accordingly. This may not seem important but unfortunately, and this is not directed at you, these types of errors are what is detrimental to wikipedia. Error is compounded upon error and the cabal gets into operation and we then have decisions made on emotion and erroneous "group think" instead of evidence. Once again I am not accusing you of this, but pointing out that it is a part of what has happened to me and happens, unfortunately, to other editors.

For example, in recent posts we have seen Jim Butler sneering at me that his views on acupuncture are supported by the WHO and I am wrong. read 'em and weep, dude is what he said. When I pointed out his error he then said his views were irrelevant and inserted further contorted logic to presume the views of other editors on whether the topic ban should be lifted. Without respect for logic, without respect for evidence and without respect for consistency we do not progress the goal of an objective encyclopedia, nor in this case the efficient handling of a request for review of a topic ban. Unfortunately true believers exhibit this type of behaviour - chopping and changing to suit the moment. Jim has said "Acupunture is strong enough to withstand criticism" (surely the mark of a true believer). Thus he frequently removes criticism of acupuncture. For example my last edit[80], admittedly part of an edit war which led to me being topic banned (the discussion was closed without me putting my case) was reverted by Jim as soon as the page protection was lifted. I hope you will agree that my edit improved the article.

As to why this is urgent, the question is why not lift the ban which can very simply be replaced if necessary. To further answer your question, I have already stated that Scientizzle has not indicated that he has reviewed my block history which was a central plank of the blocking admin's argument. The same admin then refused to discuss or analyse the block history. We all know there are trigger happy admins who make errors and my block history contains these. Admins have apologised to me for that. But the most recent blocking admin did not want to discuss that. Another admin has yet to respond The mark of a good admin is one who can take the time to review their own behaviour and acknowledge their errors. Scientizzle has also said my recent edits, reverted by Jim, were ok. I'd be grateful if you can you tell me what is wrong with the simple and expeditious lifting of the ban and replacing it if necessary?Mccready (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the topic ban. No need to reiterate the reasons why when others have stated them far more eloquently than I ever could. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time this was archived. There are only two ways forward at this point: Mccready can accept the restriction and let it lie for a decently long time (as in several months), or he can appeal to ArbCom. Either works for me, but I don't see any significant chance of a change right now. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facts

The fact that Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut before 1983 is well established by reliable, secondary sources. The news articles that mention Rashid Khalidi in his Beirut period between 1976 and 1984 are collected here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashid_Khalidi/Archive_6#The_Evidence While it is true that some of these articles quote him without describing him as a PLO spokesman, it is equally true that some articles quote him without describing him as a professor. What they do say, however, is that he worked for the PLO. While one article describes him as "close to Al Fatah" and another as "a Palestinian with good access to the PLO leadership," the great majority of these articles, in major news sources including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times describe him in a straightforward fashion as a “spokesman” “spokesperson” “official” “a director of the (PLO) press agency” or as an academic who “works for the PLO.” In these interviews, Khalidi sometimes describes PLO positions and activities using the pronoun “we” For example, in 1981, he was quoted by the Christian Science Monitor explaining the relationship between the PLO headquarters in Beirut and the Palestinians in Israel.: “we have built up tremendous links with the Palestinians 'on the inside' in different ways. We can render them services, often through our compatriots in the West, that King Hussein, for example, could never match. We've never been stronger there…” Multiple very reliable sources prove that Khalidi worked for the PLO in Beirut. This is a significant part of the man’s career. And an important fact to include in an article about a man whose entire career, after all, has been devoted to writing about Arab nationalism, whose most significant book is a history of Palestinian nationalism, and who is a leading spokesman in English for the Palestinian national cause. Historicist (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential threats

Resolved

 – blocked 48 hours for breach of a bunch of policies --Rodhullandemu 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An ip address, User:86.210.246.56 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), has been repeatedly making claims on the New Deal (United Kingdom) article, comparing this government programme to Nazi slave labour, posting a long screed of original research and reposting after it has been reverted numerous times. [81] [82] [83]. The ip has been warned numerous times and is now on their fourth warning, but their latest action was to post on their user page this statement. In it he claims that this was just a test to find out if wikipedia is a government propaganda site, and he is now satisfied that since he can't post his rambling criticism, that it is. Some choice phrases are:

• 'I think from 2009 there is going to be a war and Wiki as a Govt propaganda site and censor agent will be on the wrong side in that war folks. By the way, the war crimes trials allow me to identify UK govt agents and have a war with them.'
• 'Next time when the whole thing goes public Wiki will be as a tool of Govt propaganda subject to efforts to stop that propaganda as will the individuals putting out the propaganda, it will all be in the best possible legal taste using perfectly legal methods, methods made expressly lawful by amongst other things the judgement in The Einsatzgruppen CAse the right of targeted people to organise and fight back.'

While I'm fairly confident this is more nonsense rambling, perhaps it would be appropriate to block now on the grounds of threats both legal and implied physical, against both wikipedia and whoever else this person has a grievance with. Benea (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

86.210.246.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's basing his threats on the little-known Guacamole Act of 1917. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I also reported it to WP:AIV, to cover another base. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin put a 48-hour block on at 15:23 to cool that guy's jets for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold up. A cool down block? Usually those are discouraged. PXK ^T /_C 18:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They happen all the time. Normally in the guise of "civility" blocks. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was neither. He'd continued WP:SOAPBOXing on his Talk page after a last warning. Whereas the *effect* of the block may be to cool him down, it was intended (a) to protect the encyclopedia and (b) to concentrate his mind on the many policies he'd breached. He now has time to assimilate those policies, and should he choose not to, well, his IP Address is an ASSIGNED PA and I wouldn't have any problem blocking this user for a further three months. Problem? --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's WP:SOAPBOX. I hide nao. Garden. 22:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

.. and in English, which is the language what I speak, this means....? --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Scottish for "now"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I may be better informed, but, alas, none the wiser. Whereas I can solve anagrams in crosswords such as "reformed presbyterian popsinger?", here, I prefer the straight talking. --Rodhullandemu 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Template: convert

I'm not involved, but discussion of {{convert}} on its talk page and, latterly, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is degenerating into a morass of AGF, CIVIL and related breaches, involving the description of editors as "arrogant Euro-snots" (to quote just one recent example). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be time to bring up that humourous "how big America is/how big America thinks it is" graph... last I checked, this is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Them Europeans is just jealous, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A conundrum...to block or give a second chance....

Resolved

 – second chance is fine; attack on user page redacted. user remains inactive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I suspect that User:TLazzo is a reincarnation of User:Lazzo1 who was blocked for attacking the userpage of User:Jack Merridew in February 2008. The new user has been active since March (well, not especially). Do we let it slide and give this person a second chance or....? I am happy to roll with consensus on this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A glance at their contribs shows nothing bad, even some good. I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Same topics being edited. The new account was created right after the block, which would be a violation, but it wasn't "caught" until now. If they have e-mail enabled, maybe someone wants to have a polite and friendly off-wiki chat with him?? ♪BMWΔ 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If he continues to edit constructively, harmoniously and productively, then there's no need to have any chat with him, since this is what we all want from all editors as a default. If he reverted to previous behaviour - and people do change and do grow up in ten months - then we'd fall on him like a sack of spuds. But until then, there's no reason to start poking him with a stick to see if he'll turn on us. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with allowing Lazzo another chance. As I commented at User talk:TLazzo#You're evading a block, I view the note at the top-right of his userpage to be an attack on me. User is not very active and does not have email enabled (and I'm not the appropriate party to have said chat, anyway). Up to others… Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even sure why this issue is being brought up quite frankly. The user has edited quite constructively for almost the full duration of a year and doesn't seem to be active very much on wikipedia anyway. His last edit was over a month ago. I think it would be silly to bring up old concerns from almost a year ago, much less reblock the user for them. Cheers dude (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Contested admin edits to high-visibility template

See Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Restored.

In short, there was a long and in-depth discussion (now mainly in the archives) regarding the removal of an external links parameter to third-party sites. The issue, while contentious, had been decided in favor of removing the links, and the parameters were removed by admins. The side in favor of keeping the links in the infobox claimed that there was no consensus, while the side in favor of their removal claimed to have a supermajority and claimed that the other side was a vocal minority mainly led by one editor. Despite a long string of threads, both sides eventually let the matter drop.

Now, after more than a month with minimal activity on the talk page, an uninvolved admin has restored the old parameters, without either consultation to the full record on the talk page and its archives, nor was any discussion initiated prior to this action. The editors who wanted the links to stay are claiming that this is a vindication of their position, while the editors who wanted the links removed are concerned why this was done unilaterally without any discussion after a considerable period of inactivity on the talk page.

With regard to the admin's actions, any fresh eyes would be appreciated. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you make any attempt to carry on a one-on-one discussion with the admin before coming here to complain? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been an on-going discussion that the admin has participated in at least twice now in the past few days. Are you implying that I've been negligent? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not indicate that in your initial summary of the situation, which is why I asked the question. There is no need to read any hidden message in my question. I accused you of nothing. It was not clear that the admin had been aware of the situation from your summary, so I asked. You answered. Thank you for doing so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"before coming here to complain" sounded a bit pejorative. I apologize if I got the wrong impression, but your tone was unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... It would have been useful to note that the template is fully protected, as I was going to natter on about this not being a matter for admin review (being an editorial action) until I checked what the protection situation was. There may be an issue of a sysop using their flags to edit to a preferred status rather than a consensus forming on the page for an admin to enact a change - but this may be true of the edit that was reversed. I would not consider Elonkas actions abusive, but they may have been inappropriate. At the moment I would suggest that a better course would be to open a RfC, get a firm consensus and have whatever decision enacted (or not, if that is the consensus). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and proposed the same thing. I think a second RfC (we had one already, and it had unanimous support for removal of the links), with notification left at every possibly relevant page, and where all involved parties stay entirely out of the debates, is the only possible solution to this never-ending battle. I say all participants of the previous debates stay out of the RfC because every time we try and generate another debate for neutral parties to give their opinion (whether a formal RfC or something else) it always ends up with the same set of editors (both for and against) interrupt the debates with the same arguments, drowning out all of the neutral parties.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Unanimous support for removal of the links" is a, no doubt inadvertant, mis-statement of the facts. Whether there was a consensus or not can be debated (I personally do not believe there was), but it is quite certain that there was no "unanimity." The issue continues to be contested. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On the above basis I would volunteer to clerk any new RfC - removing repeat arguments and such, sanctioning abusers who ignore appeals/warnings - if that is felt might be useful. Let me know on my talkpage if such services are required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not against old faces, but what if the RfC was more contained? We have it in a separate page, the !vote and argument sections for each side are to be restricted solely to their functions (ie no discussions there) and then a discussion section below for anyone wishing to have a back-and-forth. This would allow the situation to be easily readable, summarized, and !counted. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An RfC without discussion isn't a "!vote", it's a vote. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"I say all participants of the previous debates stay out of the RfC..." Not gonna happen. An RfC exists to measure opinions of all parties involved. I find this a rather strange proposal. Only the one closing a debate should have no prior history of involvement. Also, why should "repeat" arguments be filtered? They should be measured on their merit and validity, not wehther they are repeated by others. — Edokter • Talk • 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have done so yet, I posted notice of this complaint on the talk page of User:TheCoffee. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I see my name was brought up here, so I just thought I'd comment: I personally have no preference one way or the other on how the template is configured. My change was simply a routine accomplishment of an {{editprotected}} request at the talkpage, at Template talk:Infobox Film#Request edit of protected page. I routinely handle many such requests, and do not generally review all discussions on the talkpage: I just look at the specific thread where the request was made. If I see no objections, and the request appears to have been made in good faith, I accomplish the change. If I jumped the gun a bit, I do apologize, and have no preference one way or the other on whether or not my change is reverted. That is up to the consensus of the editors who are discussing things at the template's talkpage. --Elonka 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're getting anywhere here. While a strict reading of policy may construe TheCoffee's reversion of another administrator's decision a violation of policy, due to the archived threads, I completely understand why he felt consensus was not present in this case, and it would be best for all concerned he were not censured for the action. I've proposed a direction in which to move on this at the appropriate talk page, and with no immediate administrator action required I suggest that this thread is marked resolved. Steve ^{T • C} 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was discussed a month ago does not matter any longer. It is irrelevant to look at the older discussions because the change was in place for a month; WP:CONSENSUS says, "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." With such a change, many film articles were affected, yet we did not get swarmed with complaints about the change. This was likely because the change was the removal of redundant external links, and the original set of links were already found in "External links" sections. Sometimes if a change is systemic, editors will flock to the relevant talk page, and the status quo is restored. This did not happen here. TheCoffee, for whatever reason, overlooked the duration of the change and referred to discussions that are no longer relevant to the present. The admin has failed to recognize this month-old silent consensus and has yet to revert his change in acceptance of this. Older discussions do not matter anymore; there are stragglers (as consensus is never 100%) who will try to dredge them up. We have seen no pressure from others to restore the redundancy. TheCoffee needs to acknowledge this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: So it seems a suggestion has been made to take the whole thing to the fourth round?
Lets keep the problem simple: so far any related consensuses have been declared by involved editors only, that is in conflict with the whole idea that requires consensus to be evaluated by uninvolved editors.
The way I got involved with this, I noticed the request for removal on the edit-protected page that included a declaration of consensus. After reading the actual discussions, and realizing that the consensus was declared by an involved editor who had initiated the removal proposal in the first plcae, and in fact the discussion included reasonable opposition, that raised red flags in my opinion. It was confirmed by another uninvolved editor/admin at the time who after reading the discussion became to the same conclusion: there was no consensus, and the removal request was denied because of it: [84]
Now time passed and discussion continued until for the second time a consensus was declared by an editor who had initiated and supported the removal in the first place. That very moment there was nobody around to object + no diffs or links to the actual discussion were provided, and the declared consensus caused Elonka to make the removal in good faith in my opinion.[85] Considering this, in my opinion TheCoffee has acted responsibly and according to the actual discussions.
Suggestion: in case anybody really wants to take this to the fourth round, I would suggest also considering my latest proposal to solve the question, posted on 29 November 2008: the idea basically is that in order to get a wider exposure to the issue, a temp questionnaire should be linked to the infobox itself. That would direct to relevant discussion page where everybody interested could voice their opinion. The bottom line that it all should come down to after all: Are the links in the infobox valuable for every day Wikipedia readers? And the only way to find it out is to ask it from them directly. Currently, everything that has happened goes on behind the scenes and an average reader never has known how to get to the Inbobox' link discussions that talk about the issue.--Termer (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Which basically is an appeal to WP:USEFUL. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Misapplied here; this isn't a deletion discussion, it's a content dispute. — Edokter • Talk • 12:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about deleting parameters, are we not? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry but I fail to see a connection between my suggestion to expose the question in hand to a wider WP user-base and WP:USEFUL. Also WP:DELETE that deals with Wikipedia articles has nothing much to do with inclusion-exclusion of coupler of links in the infobx. And finally, this is not a place to have another round of the debate itself.--Termer (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

block of User:Roobit

Resolved

 – consensus for block of Roobit (talk · contribs) exists --fvw* 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On 2008-12-12, Moreschi blocked Roobit (talk · contribs) indefinitely for "Long term flamer, soapboxing, hate speech, and fervent nationalist POV pushing". While there is a lot of edit warring going on in the constellation of articles this user edits, I don't think this user is the only one to blame, and I'm rather uncomfortable with admins unilaterally giving what in practice amounts to a ban for things like this. If the community does feel that a ban is in order, it should be decided by the community, so I've brought it for discussion here. --fvw* 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, after taking a long hard look at this situation, I agree. I see absolutely no reason for blocking or banning of this user. I do however see a reason to have a talk with the users Roobit is in dispute with about wikipedia policy. After looking at the Estonia-Russian relations talkpage history, I noticed Roobit makes a justified revert as there are 2 or 3 other users removing his comments from the talkpage which is not allowed. Termer first removes it, followed by an IP address on the basis that it's an irrelevant rant (which doesn't seem to be the case as it relates to the topic the users are debating), following that, Roobit reinstates his edits justifiably so, then user:Miacek gets rid of it without providing a reason as to why, as shown here [86]. If the users had a problem with what he was saying they should have relayed that to him on the talkpage without removing his edits as that is not allowed.

Miacek engages in similar behavior on the user's personal talkpage; judging from what I found, she reintroduces edits to the user's talk page (while assuming bad faith in her edit summary) despite the fact that the user removed them (which he has a right to do) as shown here [87]. Looks to me like the wrong editor was blocked in this one and Miacek may need some talking to about wikipedia policies. Anyway, hope this helps. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Block justfied Roobit was a xenophobic moron trying to start flame wars in some of the most flammable areas of Wikipedia. Examples of his work: such a country never existed before Bolsheviks (and is now a temporary fluke of history), phony statelet of Estonia, wastelands of civilization like the awful United States with their artificial smiles and other assorted horrors, terrible England, pathetic Scandinavia or most of post-USSR space, In the Czech Republic language is easy to understand (for a Russian speaker at least) and beer is excellent but the country is dreary, food is bad, and most inhabitants are sullen zombies., If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen.. --Folantin (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue I'm raising here is not whether a block is merited, but rather whether it should be done by one admin rather than a discussion here or an RfC. Also, please remove the personal attacks from the above. --fvw* 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

whether it should be done by one admin rather than a discussion here or an RfC. Why? With comments like those, there's nothing that needs to be discussed. --Folantin (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, please do not insult this banned user as a 'moron'. Let's try to keep this discussion civil. Also, those comments are each selectively taken out of their paragraphs so it seems they can easily be taken out of context. The editor had a lot to say on these issues and only taking into consideration certain portions of what he said and without seeing what they were replies to, you could easily mistake the meaning of what he meant entirely. As an example, it doesn't sound like he was attacking the user in regards to his/her grandmother right here but trying to make a point [88] Cheers Cheers dude (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That was in reponse to the following anonymous comment: "Red Army murdered my grandmother in March 1945 in Marijampole (Lithuania) and they murdered millions, but some young russians trye to hide this". In other words, Roobit says: "Your grandmother was a Nazi so she deserved to die". If that's not offensive, I don't know what is. --Folantin (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Army (or still Red Army in 1945) did kill a few million Nazis. They also killed off some Lithuanian and Estonian ethno-Nazis and we can thank them for that. If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen.

In my opinion, you've taken what he said completely out of context. That's not what he is saying at all. I think the user is making a point. I think he's objecting to what the Soviet Army has done. I think he is saying, the Societ Army killed all these people including Nazis. Now, how would you feel if they killed your grandmother or your Nazi friends just as an act of mild retribution for millions of murders.' The user obviously has an advanced writing style so again, please do not selectively take comments from his paragraphs as he seems to be trying to make points in his writing style. Cheers dude (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"I think he's objecting to what the Soviet Army has done". Are you joking? --Folantin (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not debate what he meant and agree to disagree. The user obviously has a very advanced writing style. This would not be an issue if the editors I previously mentioned bothered to discuss these matters with him rather than just removing his comments. If they talked things out on the talkpage and attempted to figure out where he was coming from, none of this would be an issue. That's why its encouraged to discuss matters out on article talkpages rather than removing comments entirely. You may disagree with it, but that's what I think. I've given my opinion on the issue and I am moving on. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to debate. This user is simply a participant in the Estonian (or Baltic) vs. Russian flame wars which broke out over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. He's one of the more extreme members of the Russian side. He doesn't have "an advanced writing style" and there is no subtlety to grasp here. When he says If they killed your Nazi [sic - based on no evidence] grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed", that's what he means. I find your attempts to excuse him frankly bizarre. --Folantin (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm! My apologies Folantin! I have now noticed what the user above him has said. Roobit's behavior seems to be remarkably uncivil. His writing style is very long-winded and convoluted. I will step out of this discussion. Feel free to disregard my comments all. I don't know how exactly to perform a strikethrough. :D So much for trying to look for the good in people. Cheers dude (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Folantin in some of what is said but with a vital exception. We should focus on the content of wikipedia articles. We are creating an encyclopedia. The important question is whether Roobit (talk · contribs) has damaged the article. I note as an aside that some admins would block Folantin immediately for inflammatory language on this page. Folantin, you have given two different versions of what was allegedly said about the nazi grandmother, can you provide a diff?Mccready (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"I've given two versions"? Where?* "I note as an aside that some admins would block Folantin immediately for inflammatory language on this page". No they wouldn't. It was fair comment. Besides which, since July I've repeatedly pointed out serious violations of WP:BLP against a respected academic (who was compared to a Holocaust denier) which occurred on this very page. No admin has yet removed them. "We should focus on the content of wikipedia articles". Um, WP:TALK counts too (and I can remember one user who was permanently banned for nothing but inane talk page comments). Anyone trying to reignite the massive Baltic-Russian edit wars which raged through 2007 and beyond by trolling on the talk page (as Roobit has done) should be banned. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the relevant diff is here [89] (the anon's comments in grey above, Roobit's below in green). --Folantin (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Folantin you used direct quotes saying he said "Your grandmother was a Nazi so she deserved to die". It appears that is not what he said. The other version you gave was what he actually said. Perhaps you should strike out the incorrect version. Misquoting someone is a very serious error, particularly if it serves to inflame a delicate situation.I'd rather we focus on content edits. Can you provide diffs to show he has damaged a wikipedia article? Otherwise I have to agree with fvw and I also regret you haven't yet struck out the personal attacks as requested. I should also state that I have not yet formed a view on Roobit.Mccready (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I said: "In other words, Roobit says: 'Your grandmother was a Nazi so she deserved to die'". I gave the link to what Roobit actually said in my very first edit. "I should also state that I have not yet formed a view on Roobit". Well perhaps you should do some background research before intervening here. --Folantin (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Folantin. You did indeed preface by saying "in other words". Nonetheless it might have been better not to paraphrase and if you wanted to paraphrase not to use quote marks. I'm not sure your use of the word "intervening" is helpful. I'm here hopefully for the same reason you are - to build a better encyclopedia. The best way of doing that is to focus primarily on content. Would you mind providing diffs where Roobit has damaged a wikipedia article? Cheers. Mccready (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might have been better had you read what I wrote more carefully, but no matter. As for the rest, you need to do some background reading to one of the most virulent national conflicts on Wikipedia. It took a lot of effort to get the "Estonia-Russia Wars" under control and nobody appreciates a user trying to "flame them up" again. Guy gets it. It's not like Roobit is one of our prize content contributors anyway. If he wants to air his prejudices, he can go to Blogspot. --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looking through the contributions, Roobit appears to be a rude, aggressive nationalistic soapboxer. I don't think we need any more of those, we have more than enough already. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Per those edit summaries cited above, I agree with Guy. This is one user we can do without. He's posted another unblock request (which is how I found this discussion--I'm turning it down). Blueboy96 16:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Roobit is a case of blatant abuse of Wikipedia for promoting extremist POV. His hatred against some nations is so extreme, that his rhetorics resemble Nazi propaganda. Moreschi made a bold step and blocked for once and for all an account that had been promoting hatred for years. Only due to incompetent and/or biased admins could this continue for so long a period of time (Roobit was reported numerous times [90], no action was taken. According to Admin coelacan, 'nothing happened'. Wow!). If this troll gets unblocked, I suggest inviting Nazi skinheads and Ku Klux Klan to join wiki, too... --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since Roobit has been banned, he has been using forum pages of the Estonian news portal Baltic News Network as a soapbox for his xenophobia. Agree with the above, we don't want these people using Wikipedia as a soapbox too. Martintg (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block on Roobit. He's here for all the wrong reasons and shows little chance for improvement in foreseeable future. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys, that's enough community consensus for me, and we've got Category:Requests_for_unblock cleared again. Thanks for your input. --fvw* 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. In addition, I will point out that talkpage disruption is no better than article disruption. It creates an unpleasant atmosphere, encourages counter-flaming, de-motivates other editors and means that constructive work on the article itself generally decreases. Moreschi (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues with User:SlyFrog

Resolved

 – -ish. Evidence deleted with article, editor has acquiesced for now

This is a mixed issue ... already a massive 3RR (which yes, belongs elsewhere), but the nature of the information that they are reverting is the major problem. See [here] for proof of the 3RR and a simple reading of the any of his most recent versions of the articles. I have given the user my personal Welcome to a user who has been uncivil in their first edits template, and a 3RR warning. Issue was first brought to my attention in WP:WQA♪BMWΔ 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

After thorough discussion with the editor (which is not 100% fruitful), and the unfortunate loss of the evidence with the deletion of the article, this issue is "resolved-ish"...for now. ♪BMWΔ 11:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that discussion with BMW was not 100% fruitful, but that issue has been resolved due to deletion of article. SlyFrog (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bedford blatantly breaking policies...

I am sure that you are aware of the desysopping of User:Bedford by User:Jimbo Wales. On his userpage, he mentions this:

I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.

That is the third paragraph... He is breaking Article 10 on WP:NOT and breaking WP:NPA wich that quotes includes a vague concept of a personnal attack...

What is the game plan? --Mixwell!^Talk 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no "article 10 of WP:NOT." Or rather there is more than one. Please link to the section you think applies. Edison (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• This has been a concern of mine for some time, and just last night I emailed Bedford in regards to the content on his userpage asking him to please remove it and he failed to. I think there is a very easy solution here: Bedford removes the content and we all move on, no need for drama, no need for arguing, no need for blocks. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I reread the rules, and no rules were broken. People may wonder what happened when they see such a valuable user and yet somehow he does not have the status he deserves. Besides, if you look at [91] you can see Mixwell is clearly just wanting to agitate. Best for him to apologize to me, and move on.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford please, do not turn this thread into your soap box. The community is asking you to remove content from a userpage that belongs to them that violates WP:NPA and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Please respect that, remove it, and move on. Tiptoety ^talk 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am not Bedford's friend, nor I am his enemy. I have worked together with him, and I have disagreed. I feel that the comments should be removed because of their connection to a past moment, and we should be concerned with future progress. I hope this comment is neutral, and I hope other comments on the issue are equally neutral so we don't turn this into a fight about past problems, personal differences, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as Scotty Peterson wanted to silence his wife, so too do some want this removed.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that I am better looking and not as creeping as Peterson, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Pfft As is typically the case with these kind of remarks, they have the opposite effect to that which the author intended - which kind of makes it hard for me to get my knickers in a twist about them. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not bring external affairs to flame this thread... --Mixwell!^Talk 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? CIreland (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the distinct feeling you misunderstood CIreland's comment. It was really just a statement of common sense, that someone may make a statement intending to effect a particular view in readers, and unintentionally invoke quite another. Orderinchaos 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please Generalissimo. Remove the comments. They may have won the battle but they will not win the war! Synergy 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)It has come to my attention that my response may be construed as being serious. It is not. It is 100% completely sarcastic. I sang We Three Pengs while writing it.

• While I don't agree with the tone of the paragraph on Bedford's page (nor the charming turd he dropped above), I believe that the original complainant is trolling, as demonstrated by the diff Bedford provided. That was thoroughly uncalled for, and designed to provoke a response. I would ask Bedford to retract or refactor the Scott Peterson statement above, and consider refactoring the paragraph on his userpage, but dismiss this complaint (with prejudice). Horologium (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• While the complainant may have a prejudice towards the user, that does not make the report completely bogus. I see a few other users here who feel this issue has some stance and as such should not just be passed off. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much in the way of personal attacks in Bedford's comment. It does however seem to be uncivil. Bedford, maybe instead of removing it you can simply tone it down a bit? Comparing what happened to "gangrape" really isn't helpful for anyone. If you just removed or rewrote that part of the sentence I suspect people would be fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• The userpage comment is just about within policy. While putting things like that on your userpage is generaly a rather poor idea it is best adressed for the time being by the community ignoreing it.Geni 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see how accusing editors of rape is within policy at all, seeing as sexual crime allegations tend to stick to the accused, whether proven or not. And I don't mean to be a dick about this... but what else do you expect from a Confederate idoliser with edits such as this? Although I'm not that well versed in American history, I'm pretty sure most people don't idolise the Confederacy just because "General E. Lee was a pretty alright bloke". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear in context that rape is not literal in this context so your first concern has little weight. Bedford's personal views about the Confederacy aren't relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see no reason why Bedford should not be allowed to express his views on his userpage in this manner—if people want to hold and exercise power, then they should be prepared to face furious criticism from those who are negatively affected by their actions. Everyking (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Gangrape" has absolutely no place in the discussion. A complete and utter violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against any and all parties who were involved in his de-sysopping, in a most disgusting and vile manner. Personally, not only would I remove the comments, but a slight vacation would be in order. It he had used it in an internalized/clarified method ("...in what is perhaps the Wikipedia equivalent of a gangrape...") this would be different. ♪BMWΔ 12:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if he went onto somebody's talk page and accused them of participating in a "gangrape", but since this is his own userpage and he is airing his viewpoint about an action that was taken against him, I feel this ought to be permitted. In general it is not wise or healthy to censor or punish people who are airing grievances against more powerful people in what is perceived as their personal space. Everyking (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's material that's unacceptable. If I wrote "Jimbo Wales is a cunt" on my user page and I kept reverting efforts to remove it, would we even be having this discussion? No; I'd be nearly instantly banned. You just don't call people rapists. And that's not some pansy Wikipedia rule, that's common decency. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what Bedford's latest edition of user page trolling is; it's annoying, but as CIreland says, I don't think it's doing what he thinks it's doing for his image. What's ultimately far more damaging to the environment our community operates in (compared to the gratuitous use of the words "gang rape" on an obscure user page), is the habit of many users (Mixwell just being the latest example) of wandering around looking for things to be offended by, and the habit of many users (Sceptre just being the latest example) of taking the opportunity whenever their perceived enemy shows up on a noticeboard to attack with every dredged-up criticism there is. We would all be better off if so many of us didn't rise so predictably to the bait every single time someone trolls us, or go for the jugular every time we see potential prey separated from the herd. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since User:Sceptre and User:Mixwell both decided (sequentially) to edit war with Bedford on his own user page, I have fully protected it. Unless and until there is a clear consensus that the section in question is impermissible, it will remain on Bedford's page. As both Sceptre and Mixwell have a history of conflict with Bedford, there actions are nothing more than axe-grinding. Horologium (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, the person who appears to be edit warring is Bedford, who, might I add has violated WP:3RR (just because it is his userpage does not make him exempt). I do think that before the text is removed, consensus must be gained and I urge all parties involved to cool off, then talk. Tiptoety ^talk 03:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser look at Sceptre/Mizwell would be far more fruitful.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, remove it. As I said, if I kept reverting the removal of something like "Jimbo Wales is a cunt" or "Jimbo Wales raped the community", I'd be quickly banned. Besides, "it's a metaphor" does not make it appropriate. "Fucked as a baby in a pedophile convention" is a metaphor (or a similie), but it's still offensive (and deliberately chosen because it is). Sceptre ^(talk) 03:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

actually if you read WP:3RR it kind of does unless you are arguing that its libelous. If anything, the other two violated the spirit of 3RR through their tag teaming efforts.65.213.142.2 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The lack of enforcement when it comes to user pages is simply mind-boggling sometimes. While I can appreciate the need for consensus on whether it is acceptable, if the admins here aren't going to (at the very least) refactor the ill-considered wording (instead of "gangrape", use the word "it" or something less offensive), then this will require ArbCom intervention. Even if this isn't necessarily BLP-related, the rule of thumb is to avoid doing harm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. If the word "Actions" were used, I wouldn't like it, but it would be permissible. The term used is perjorative and needs to be taken down (and if he won't show any decency and take it down himself, it should be removed for him). SirFozzie (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I personally don't think it is that big of an issue. It is potentially offensive, but when you put yourself in Bedford's shoes, I think is a rather mild reaction, especially for someone who is generally as outspoken as he is. I, for one, would likely have not even noticed that on his page had I not specifically been looking for it. It's not like he has <span style="font-size:600%;text-decoration:blink;color:red;"> before it. I would say, just let it go, as there are many things we could all be doing that would be a better use of our time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• What I'd personally like to know, leaving the whole Bedford issue out of it, is how exactly this section managed to migrate from being nearly at the top of the page, to being all the way down here?? This looks to me like someone's effort to "bump" the topic back into discussion....and frankly I think we have much bigger fish to fry than this. GJC 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  It was moved here [92]. DuncanHill (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seeing as a edit war had occurred, and the page was protected it appeared we needed to come to some form of consensus before this thing really got out of hand. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I requested the protection until such time as certain children found other ways to grab attention for themselves. Ignoring them would be the best policy.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 06:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The irony, she burns. // roux   06:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, he compares his treatment to that of a gangrape, he does not call out any editors as gang-rapists. It's a subtle difference, but ultimately, shitty purple prose isn't worth fighting over. As we've all seen here, anyone who thinks that an election won without daddy's SCOTUS appointments handing it to you is more illegitimate than one with such antics, tied with a love of southern civil war politics, is a boring bigot, and like all such wiki-trolls, ignoring it is better. eventually, he'll behave in a manner so outlandish that he'll get the attention he's seeking, just before he gets banned. patience is a virtue in this case, let his commentary stand. ThuranX (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's political feelings and his interest in the Civil War are not at question, nor are they grounds for personal attacks to be an acceptable form of input in this discussion. Please redact and stay on topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm over my 1/month quota at ANI again, so I'll be brief. Has Bedford or any other of the commenters here been the subject of the verb in question? (For Bedford, not the metaphorical sense, do you have an idea of the physical experience?) Have Bedford or any others committed such acts? Does anyone have a clue what that word means, and how the experience echoes through entire lifetimes? To trivialize a horrible crime by analogizing it to an experience on a stupid website, makes my gorge rise... so I'll stop now. Franamax (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Second that: the real issue here is not that the phrase is offensive to those involved in Bedfords desysop (tho of course it is), but that the phrase could be extremely offensive to some readers & this is why it should go. If it were only a matter of Bedford trolling then it could be ignored, but in this case it is the specific form that the trolling takes that is the problem. Misarxist 09:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Third'ed Franamax; that's exactly why we changed "wikistalking" to "wikihounding". Sceptre ^(talk) 12:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Fourth'd (?) And for those of you whose first mental reaction was to recommend that Bedford actually be subjected to the physical version of his verb so that he could compare, I say "shame" (yes, there are a few of you, I know it). ♪BMWΔ 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested clarification from ArbCom, with regards to my previous comment - the emerging consensus was clear, yet there's still been no enforcement whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• The words involved harm just one person - Bedford himself. They are unlikely to convince anyone he has any sort of case. But as they are on his userpage the only people likely to read them are those interested in Bedford and his views. If he is not able to see for himself that these words do him no favours, I suggest moving on. It's really not worth creating any sort of drama over. Dean B (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're not wrong - the overwhelming message is "once I was po'ed about this, now I am po'ed, bitter, resentful, hate-filled and vindictive". Not a great advert for Bedford's human qualities. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares, let's just move on and not feed the troll. The only person it's harming is Bedford, himself. There's probably tons worse that I could think of that would be more offensive than this... VX!^~~~ 03:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• The use of the term "gangrape" in describing the removal of his sysop status is clearly just an overblown metaphor and not an accusation of criminal conduct. I do not see it as a policy violation. In my personal view, his use of the term to describe the actions of Wales and others does not gain sympathy for Bedford. I would permit it on his own user page, and I would not consider it a 3RR violation for him to restore the text on the page when others remove it. I hold no view on the appropriateness of the desysopping, since the issues in question are not posted here and I had not heard of it prior to this discussion. I would urge Bedford to edit out the term since it is just drama inducing and sounds whiny. I would urge his enemies to move on and read other pages. Edison (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)