Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Bullying on the Preity Zinta nomination by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · logs)

I have to say that this vote appears invalid by Sarvagnya on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zintaand is done out of spite within an hour following a confronation on the article -please see Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of User:Shhhhh following the edit war on that page and visisted the page specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable that somebody would delibrately not give a genuine review of an article and attempt to jeopardise it because of a previous confrontation elsewhere. User:Shhhhh was blocked following the incident on that page but I don't think admin were getting both sides to the story. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya is entitled to his opinion (in fact, it's perfectly legitimate). Please assume good faith. Everything you claim is based on personal speculation. To make matters worst, it's disgusting to see how a number of editors suddenly attacked and criticized Sarvagnya for his vote on the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Shshshsh (talk · contribs · logs) who was pretty OTT in their response to the objections to Sarvagnya yesterday was subsequently blocked for 24hours for a violation of the 3RR. He appears to have been block evading using his sister's PC [1] and I have lengthened his block this morning for this. Recorded because there may well be some history in all this that is relevant to this complaint - I haven't looked into this at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have given a lengthy explanation on the talk page. Basically, having registered an alternate account in order to contribute to a heated and contentious debate (acceptable) he has stepped outside those bounds to edit-war over links to a blog whihc contains the usual bullshit allegation about SlimVirgin. Whether or not the blog is acceptable in the article, it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. Several people have expressed acute discomfort about Privatemusings' editing patterns, including this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167542856&oldid=167537969
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167547955&oldid=167545420
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167724429&oldid=167701098
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167763380&oldid=167759942
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167978680&oldid=167967496

and here supporting an earlier revert by a Jon Awbrey sock:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167515431&oldid=167507361

Enough is enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the account was no longer being used to contribute to a contentious debate, instead to edit war, and deserved to be be blocked. I note you blocked with autoblocks on. I suggest you unblock and reblock with the autoblock disengaged. Neil ☎ 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. The main account holder could possibly use an enforced reminder about acceptable behavior. As long as he doesn't post unblock, he won't give away who he is/was. Thatcher131 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part, so yes I will fix it. I've no desire to give even the slightest appearance of being punitive here. I think that the user got carried away and forgot himself, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Do we really have to spatter the user page with a "haha we got you" indef blocked template? Neil ☎ 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, using an "alternative account" just to edit war, sorry but no. Jbeach ^sup 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using an alternative account for hot topics is explicitly allowed. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action". No one's claiming PM's being blocked for abusing sock puppets. --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a positive application of Jimbo's new 'take no less hassle from trolls' attitude. good block. ThuranX 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been forced to protect PM's user talk page. See the edit history there, and the reasoning will be self-evident. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to evade a ban, so suffice to say I consider the behaviour of involved editors to be questionable at best. I entreat other uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and hope this comment can remain. I won't post again until at least my talkpage is unprotected. Many Thanks, Privatemusings 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.156.114 (talk)

So I'm reading through this again, and while I agree with the greater substance of this block, in that PM has gone from contentious high end Arbcom/admin stuff to editing regular, contentious articles. That said, the edits in the list above reflect the core of the difficulties involved in the EL debates. Is that site being discussed in any particular location? It does certainly seem to have credibility overall for the topic, but due to that singular section, becomes objectionable. I'd like to see the discussion in action, as might others interested in both topics. Anyone got a link? ThuranX 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in WP:SOCK does it state that participation in discussion is legitimate, but the moment that contentious editing is involved, its illegitimate? Failing that statement in policy, I don't see how this block can stand. Does JzG wish to confirm that PM's "good hand" account is also participating in the same content dispute simultaneously? Because that is abusive, and the only justification for the block. Relata refero 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS

UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. Completely unbelievable. Private Musings has been a polite and kind contributor to the situation, and his anonymous mediation was extremely helpful in reaching the solution that was reached at WP:NPA. PM has always been upfront about being a sockpuppet, and as this block shows, he has good reason to fear that his connecting his view on BADSITES to his main account would make his wiki-life a living hell. WP:SOCK is quite clear that socks are legitimate in cases like this.

The so-called "edit warring" isn't much of a war at all-- it's a content dispute, and one that is largely resolved. Growing consensus on multiple pages has come down in support of links of this sort in general, and the article's talk page shows substantial support for this links in particular. PM's edits were supported by consensus.

And if his edits look repetitive, it's merely because he was combating seven edits worth of vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user, Throwawayarb, who was using the sockpuppet MOASPN to evade a block. Reverting vandalism by an indefblocked user is NOT edit warring, and you can't with a straight face say that this is a case of ban-worthy edit warring. The fact that the blocking user is someone who has vocally disagrees with blockee about the content dispute only makes the block look even more indefensible.

This is a travesty. We all know PM is not being blocked for "edit warring"-- his edits just don't meet the standard. at is that links of this We all know PM isn't being blocked for being a sock-- WP:SOCK explicitly endorses PM's actions. PM is being blocked for advocating a position that the blocking admin disagrees with.

This is the sort of thing someone should be desysopped over. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a less shrill objection with more diffs would be more convincing. I support the block. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the shrillness, this action just sorta confirms my worst fears. All through the Attack-Site Arbcom case, shrill lunatics tried to say BADSITES was just about a clique of bullies trying to use wikipedia as a platform to bully others. I always told those people they were crazy-- that everyone on all sides was acting in good faith and the pro-BADSITES people were just trying to protect the rights of all to contribute to Wikipedia using a pseudonym. This block, however, demonstrates to me that in at least for one admin doesn't give a damn about the right to edit pseudonymously if you have a disagreement with him.

I just really didn't want this to be true of Guy, or anyone else, ya know? I wanted us all to be bigger than that. I'm pretty devastated to see him act this badly. --Alecmconroy 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then try talking with Guy civilly. Maybe there is more information that Guy can share with you. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My ears are open, and I have contacted Guy about this. But the more important discussion now is going to be how we handle Guy's behavior. --Alecmconroy 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SOCK policy says:

• Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
• The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption.
• If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.
• Until a week ago the policy also said: Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.[2]

While I vocally opposed Privatemusings' use of a sock account to write policy, I did not seek to have the account blocked. But using the sock account in a content dispute is different. The account is now being used in disruptive dramas that don't further WP's goals. No wonder the user doesn't want his main account tarred by his activities. I've mentioned it before but I think that using a pseudonym to defend the outing of another user is hypocritical. He did so hypothetically on a policy page, but actually on a main space page. While I don't suggest outing him or identifying his main account, I do suggest that there is no good reason for him to hide behind a double veil while pulling away the veils of others. He can still edit under his main account, and comment on any issue. This isn't an editor ban, only an account block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also compare the block of Privatemusings to the recent block of User:MOASPN and related accounts. The two cases appear to share similar behaviors: linking to an outing site and using a sock to make contentious proposals. I'd ask those who oppose this block if they also oppose the block of MOASPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM account has not be used in disrupting dramas. The account has been used in valid policy and content disputes, and in EVERY case where there's been a dispute, arbcom & community consensus has ultimately sided AGAINST GUY and WITH PM. I work very very hard to WP:AGF, but it's very hard to see this as anything more than retribution. That he didn't even take the time to get an uninvolved admin to do the block makes it almost impossible to see this as anything but retribution. --Alecmconroy 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Balls. The account was being used to edit war over a (much discussed) blog link on the Robert Black (professor) article - not what the original intent was. Having a seperate unconnected sock account to discuss and contribute towards potentially contentious policy is one thing, and what the account was originally being used for. Using it to edit war over knowingly contentious content is another - as soon as that happens, you don't have the right to use a single purpose sock account to edit war. Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCKS disagrees with you. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

And even if it were true that PM had somehow accidentally violated WP:SOCKS, the solution is to start a discussion about whether his actions were consistent with WP:SOCKS-- a policy he has worked hard to comply with. If it emerged that he had accidentally misread a minor detail of WP:SOCKS, I'm sure he'd apologize and refrain from such action in the future.

The solution is NOT to jump straight to an indefinite ban. PM, both as PM and as his true identity, is a very respected editor who's done a lot to help us find consensus over at NPA. He's made many many valuable contributions. An indefinitely ban, if it stands, is just a transparent attempt to silence him--- or at least to silence him from speaking pseudonymously . --Alecmconroy 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry first - a ban is not a block is not a ban. The account, Privatemusings, is blocked. The user behind the PM account is not banned You block accounts, you ban the person behind the account. If you really want to wikilawyer, though, you need to read the part of WP:SOCK about "good hand, bad hand" accounts. The PM account had become a bad hand account being used to edit war. An edit war is, by its nature, disruptive. The PM account was being disruptive. Neil ☎ 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

a "Bad hand" is an account you use to violate policy. Do you really believe PM's four measely edits, over three days, to revert a vandal who was using a SOCK to circumvent a ban, constitute a "disruptive edit war" which merits an indefinite block, rather than a warning? PM's edits reverted a vandal, are supported by consensus, his version is STILL the current version, and were examples of "Defending the Encyclopedia", not "disruptive edit warring".

It's a trumped up charge, and Guy should be ASHAMED. It's like that joke about racism in the US South, where a totally drunken white driver crashes into an african-american pedestrian, and when the cops arrive, the wounded pedestrian is sent to jail for jaywalking. PM has been an icon of good editing behavior--- his only real "crime" is that when Guy and PM were participants in the BADSITES arbcom case, PM's side "won". ---Alecmconroy 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account. Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand. The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email. The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account. So, ArbCom is the place for appeals. Oh, wait, CBD has unblocked despite not knowing PM's other account. Way to go. Score one for the troll enablers. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - I specifically told you in very strict confidence that I would feel upset and violated at you sharing personal information with any other wiki editors. Did you in fact do just that? I trusted you. I really think it's best I stop now, lest i say something i regret. I am very glad you will escalate this. It is a new low. Privatemusings 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the really sad part about all this. Until today, I truly believed Guy just really believed in the total sanctity of users privacy. When he objected to PM being able to edit using a pseudonym, it was very disheartening. If it turns out to be true that Guy has started engaged in limited "outings", violating private trust, I'm totally speechless. Not even angry, just.... sad. --Alecmconroy 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG-- regardless of your personal opinion, I think you know that you are not an uninvolved admin. If PM really is an inappropriate use of a sock account, there's a whole encyclopedia full of people who can make that call. For you to use your admin tools here was a clear instance of using admin tools to gain the upperhand in a dispute.

Now, you say you have secret evidence the PM account is inappropriate-- all well and good. Send it to arbcom. But if you failed to recognize something as simple as "do not indefinitely block someone you are in a dispute with", you're clearly far too close to this issue for us to trust your judgment about more complex issues like whether PM account is inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not secret, it's just private, and it will stay that way. I have no prior dispute with this user of which I'm aware, it's nothing to do with his opinion on a particular issue and everything to do with controversial actions (rather than opinions), which places the actions of this account outside of what is permissible. If this user had not admitted to being a sock, we'd have blocked it as a disruptive [{WP:SPA]] a long time ago. I know the main account's identity because PM told me by email. That does not suggest that PM considers we had a prior problem. What happened here is that a self-confessed alternate account registered for the purpose of contributing to a contentious policy debate, stepped outside of that carefully defined arena and began edit-warring over links to a blog repeating part of the same harassment as was addressed in the Attack Sites arbitration. The way to handle such matters is to contact the blog owner and point out that there is no evidence to support the assertion, not to edit-war over links to a damaging, hurtful and false accusation. I have shared the details of PM's main account with only a handful of individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo. I will not be posting the name of the main account here or anywhere else.

There is no dispute for me to gain an upper hand in. This is 100% about the limits placed on use of alternate accounts, and stepping outside those limits to link to an ongoing and unacceptable campaign of harassment perpetuated by a number of justly banned users.

Nothing in the main accounts edits actually mitigates that. You have once before found that your speculations were inaccurate, and you gracefully apologised. Your speculations are again inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider engaging here I sincerely wish you would spend as much effort talking to me as you have about me. I remain upset, and uncomprehending as to the support you think your rationale has in policy. Privatemusings 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, IF what you say about this being about "the limits placed on use of alternate accounts" is so then why would the proper course of action NOT be to tell Privatemusings that he was exceeding those limits, get consensus agreement that this was the case, and then place a short block followed by successively longer ones if he violated those limits? Why was the proper course of action to yourself unilaterally decide that he had 'exceeded the limits' and immediately place an indefinite block. No warning. No public discussion. No possibility of the user agreeing not to exceed these limits. He must be blocked immediately and have no possibility even of discussing the matter. That's the right way to go about things? Then, after he has AGREED to not continue the action you were objecting to he STILL has to remain blocked? This is about users not exceeding the limits of alternate accounts, but he has to be blocked even after he has agreed to do so pending discussion of the limits? Seriously, in what way is this NOT a punitive block? --CBD 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage unprotected

The reasoning behind Jeffrey Gustafson being "forced" to protect PM's talkpage isn't self-evident to me. JG, have you thought through the coercive choice that you're actually forcing on the user by that protection? PM does have another account to use, yes, but he obviously can't use his main account to discuss this issue without outing that main account. It's precisely the requests to out his main account that he wants to discuss, and we have now created a situation where such discussion by him would become pointless the moment it began. Not good. Supposing he has pertinent things to say? (Full disclosure: I know who he is, and he's not a troll by any definiton of the term.) As for his "going on and on", what about it? It's not necessary for people who don't want to read his arguments to go to his talkpage in order to be offended. Full protection of the talkpage of a banned account is a very serious business, since it's a complete gag. It shouldn't be undertaken unless we're really forced to. I've unprotected the page. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why the talk page had to be protected. And you've halved the possible people PM could be by saying it's a "he"! Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that only works if half of Wikipedia users were female, which they're not. Assuming malenesss is still a very logical action here. Natalie 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My take

So, the Robert Black (professor) article had a link to his blog on it for a long time and all was well with the world. The page hadn't even been edited in over a month. Then on 10/26 the Professor made a blog post referring to allegations made on another site about one of our users here. The next day User:Privacyisall, to all appearances a sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this issue, removes the blog link from the article because it has now magically become an 'attack site'. Great contention erupts and suddenly there are all sorts of reasons why this blog link, which was perfectly acceptable and not at all controversial before, is now completely anathema to Wikipedia policies (all of them). Others disagree, edit warring ensues, Privatemusings restores the link a few times, he is indefinitely blocked.

That's the background. So far as I can see, no one warned Privatemusings that edit warring on this issue could lead to an indefinite block. Nor does anything in policy say that sockpuppets who engage in edit warring are immediately blocked for all time. Nor was the 'Privacyisall' account blocked for doing precisely the same thing in precisely the same edit war without any of Privatemusings' prior history of good contributions. The admin making the block (along with several of those supporting it) has a clear 'side' and emotional investment in the issue... and finally, Privatemusings has already stated that he would stay away from the page, thus removing any 'preventative' nature to this block.

I'm going to unblock. IF there is a consensus, rather than a thin excuse for suppression newly invented by a handful of people, that sockpuppets editing on contentious issues are not allowed to edit war at all then we can certainly see whether Privatemusings' is willing to abide by that and block him if he is not. However, there needs to actually BE such a consensus... and it'd be good to TELL the person about it... rather than blocking first and making up a reason afterwords. Only blocking the side that disagrees with you is, along with the lack of consensus or warning, also a fairly poor indicator for this having been a fully dispassionate and impartial action. --CBD 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson...did you discuss the matter with the blocking administrator? As it states in policy: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.--MONGO 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblocked, on the caveat that he doesnt use that account to eidt war. The editing was in the same vein as what the account was previously being used for (Attack sites) so still a legitimate use for that purpose, ie keep contentious issues away from the main account. Apart from one spate of edit warring, he has been very productive with that account and has been intelligently conducting himself on the policy pages. He wasn't given a chance to stop the misuse, its quite clear he isnt using the other account to hide from the rules, so I support the unblock. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to have been a block was reasonable, and an unblock would be against consensus. If we're going to unblock, I would say that if the Privatemusings account returns to its original purpose - that of working with contentious policy and suchlike - then fine. If it reverts back to edit warring, someone can always reblock. Neil ☎ 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experiences with him, I don't think he will return to warring. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that that is the point. Nothing at WP:SOCK enjoins editors to not make contentious edits in the areas in which they have chosen to set up alternate accounts. JzG's stated rationale above "Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand" carefully does not respond to my specific question as to whether PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about. Relata refero 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's main account was also active in this contentious area. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, and a dirty trick because of course I can't defend that point. Low. Privatemusings 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, this is an unacceptable reversion of a solid, consensus supported, block. Did you discuss this matter with the blocking administrator, Guy, first, per our blocking policy? Why have you unblocked against consensus? Privatemusings is a clear goodhand/badhand account (and the "goodhand" side isn't actually all that "good" if you ask me, I know who it is but won't reveal it publicly at this time) and needs to stay blocked. Please stop this troll enabling behaviour, CBD. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG did not make the case that Privatemusings was a "troll". He did not make the case that Privatemusings was abusing multiple accounts. Indeed, even when repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using more than one account in this matter no one said that he had been. None of that was given as any part of the reason for blocking. The block was placed for edit warring on this issue. The edit war was over. The user had agreed not to continue it. It is frequent practice to remove blocks in such circumstance. It is frequent practice to remove blocks placed by admins involved in dispute with the target. It is frequent practice to remove blocks of excessive duration - such as indefinite for a 3RR violation. Et cetera. If a case can be made for Privatemusings abusing multiple accounts and being a troll, as has been claimed subsequent to my unblock, then that case should be made. However, those aren't the things he was blocked for and the extensive discussion above included repeated requests for clarification if there WERE any such situation. There was plenty of discussion. People asked for a VALID reason to this block. None was given. An indefinite block, without discussion, without warning, for 3RR violation is NOT valid and thus I reversed it. If you have cause for the accusations which you and others have subsequently made against Privatemusings, that he is a troll and sock-abuser, you might want to make THAT case. --CBD 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to state "I'm thinking of unblocking, because of X Y and Zed" and then see what is said, instead of unilaterally unblocking in defiance of policy, which says seek consensus before the unblock, which you do not have. You seem to do this regularly and you need to stop, in my view. As for the rest, this user is an acknowledged sock, but it is a sock of a user who is making unhelpful edits in the same contentious area that this essentially SPA account is. The user should use their main account instead of obfuscating matters, because they are using this sock in a way unsupported by sock policy. Didn't we just go through this "seek consensus first" with Zscout? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all true that my other account is active in the same area - that's hurtful, insulting, and a lie. Privatemusings 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD: PS.. it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. That's from the original notice, the very first post to this thread. So your allegation that JzG claimed this was only a revert related block appears to be unfounded, that he did not make the case for multiple account abouse. You need to act a bit less in a way that gives the appearance of rashness going forward, I think. If you had posted "I have qualms and am thinking of unblocking" I am sure several people would have made that point for you. I've seen the edits and I am satisfied this is an abusive account. It's borderline by current lax standards but those standards are changing, for the better.

PM: Incorrect. I so assert. Anyone who knows the identity of both accounts can verify it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall email CBD, if I may, and should he have the time to take a look, I would welcome his views. Privatemusings 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD has used sysop tools in a controversial way with respect to this case, so he has strong incentives to justify his own actions. I don't think he can be impartial. Can you perhaps ask somebody who is uninvolved for an opinion? I think that would work better for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to - it would be particularly good to find a highly respected admin who's around at the moment - could someone put their hand up? Sincere thanks, Privatemusings 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, 'good hand / bad hand' does not equate to 'using multiple accounts in a discussion'. The fact that people repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using multiple accounts in the discussion clearly shows that this was NOT established in the 'original notice' as you are claiming. The only apparent 'bad hand' action stated by JzG was the edit warring on the link. He has subsequently re-affirmed that it was this posting of the link which 'exceeded the limits allowed' for sock accounts. So no, I cannot agree with your revisionist casting of the discussion. If Guy had been making the case of multiple accounts being used in this debate from the beginning he would not have been repeatedly asked whether there was any evidence of such. He also presumably would have responded to those requests with verification of the multi-account involvement... which he didn't.

As you now claim that there IS such abuse... I'm curious why you have not blocked both accounts? I overturned an indefinite block for 3RR violation. I stand by that action. I took it because repeated requests for any valid support for the block were not met... all that was claimed was 3RR violation with a link to a disputed site. Clearly insufficient for indef block without warning. You have now made accusations of much more serious violations. If you stand by these then block for them. I don't have evidence one way or the other and thus would direct the matter to people with the access to look into it. --CBD 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What matters is not how many times you asked a question, what matters is whether the question had already been answered, and whether there was consensus for an overturn prior to your acting, and whether you consulted with the original admin. I decline to overturn your overturn. I think I am much less likely to undo administrative actions taken by other administrators than you are, so I personally decline to overturn your unblock at this time. That should not be construed as support for your action in contravention of our custom, practice, and policy, nor should it be construed as not standing by the fact that we have apparent "bad hand" and "worse hand" accounts active in this overall matter. The primary account, which HAS participated in discussions about specific outing users and the policy ramifications of it, is not, at this time blocked, to the best of my knowledge, so can participate if it wishes to. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And even 3rr wasn't violated. The four reverts took place over three different days, and they just reverted vandalism by a banned user. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Horse's Mouth

I wholly reject any notion that any edit warring I participated in was block worthy. Hey, I also reject the notion that I edit warred at all (see my talk page). I sincerely appreciate being unblocked - this has been a horrible experience. I shan't edit at all on the Prof Black article, but stick to the talk page, and will try and avoid Guy, who seems to be firmly of the same opinion. As a consistent advocate of less drama, I'd like to ask all folks to move along, so the bot can do his work in 24hrs, and this can be behind us. Privatemusings 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• You weren't blocked for edit warring. You were blocked for stepping outside the bounds of what is acceptable for an alternate account. At least one arbitrator said this was unacceptable behaviour even before knowing the identity of the main account. This block was based on a review of the contributions of both your main and your alternate accounts. I am escalating this. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy-- why are you escalating? You've had your fun-- PM got blocked, and then his talk page blocked, and everyone got all upset, and we've had all this drama, and now finally we've accomplished what a simple discussion could have accomplished to begin with-- PM agrees not to edit the Prof Black article. And there is a strong consensus at the Prof Black article that the link is okay, so PM doesn't even have any reason to come back there anyway. Can't you just let it go now? --Alecmconroy

• Fun? Fun? What the bloody hell do you mean by that? You think I blocked Privatemusings for fun? That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and you should retract it immediately. In case you hadn't realised by now, there is a serious ongoing problem with offsite harassment and abuse of multiple accounts, and editign by proxy, to promote that harassment. I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is anything other than deadly serious. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For that I will sincerely apologize. I'm an American, and it seems to be our national vice to assume everyone is familiar with American English idioms. To "have fun" or "to have fun and games" does not literally mean you actually had "fun". I apologize you thought I meant otherwise. --Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to disengage - essentially out of blind fury (see above). This can certainly wait a few hours before being discussed further. Privatemusings 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM, if there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing then why are you using a secondary account? You said you wanted to "protect myself from any anger or hot feeling".[3] You expected a passionate reaction to your editing and you got it. Why act shocked? The fireworks and hot feelings are are over now. Let's move on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the attack sites lot is a very contentious subject, which gets a lot of feeling going - I can understand wanting to use an alternitive account. Viridae^Talk 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so can I. But that does not give carte blanche to then use that alternate account to edit-war over links to Brandt and Bagley's pet assertion about a Wikipedia user and administrator. It was that extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused--- In your eyes, was PM blocked for sockpuppet abuse, for edit-warring, or for being part of a campaign of harassment? If he had made the Prof Black edits with his main account, would you have indef blocked him still, or would that have not merited an indef block? --Alecmconroy 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deal with five contentious issues every day. Do I use a fresh account for each? No, not hardly. The editor has not been banned. One of his secondary acounts has been blocked. It isn't a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is the implication for everybody else. Relata refero 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Outing?

There's been a serious allegation made upwards in the thread, and I just want to get to the bottom of it, and instead of making allusions which might not be true, just address it up front with straight talk.

JzG, PM claims here that he confided in you, by email, and revealed his real name and other accounts to you. According to PM, he trusted you as an administrator of Wikipedia not to reveal his identity to others. This is a serious trust, and as an admin of the project, it's important people be able to trust you to keep their confidences.

Now, there are two cases where I feel you would be justified in breaking that confidence.

1. According to the text of the email he's posted claims here, PM told you he trusted Admin X and Admin Y, and you could tell them if you wanted.
2. If you have a legitimate concern that PM has a conflict of interest, it might be appropriate to reveal his identity to the board or the arbitration committee.

Now, your posts on this thread suggest that you've had widespread conversations about PM's identity with a number of people, so I'm just gonna ask you point blank:

Aside from the groups listed above, have you revealed PM's identity to anyone at all?

I sincerely hope the answer is no and we can drop that part of things. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think PM and the community deserve an answer to this question.--Alecmconroy 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of outing question

For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: "pages" does not mean the particular page in question that was being revert warred over, it means in the same general area, in particular the outing of editors and the drama surrounding efforts to deal with that unacceptable behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, discussing the abusive behavior pattern of multiple accounts used by the same editor on Wikipedia, as was done in this case, is not 'outing'. Outing would be when we engage in exposing the real life identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Crum375 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to call it "Deep and extreme violation of personal trust" instead of "outing", whichever. The point is, if I say to you "You're an admin of an important project, I want to confide in you", and you prove yourself to be unworthy of that trust, it's something that shouldn't happen. If a priest violates your trust, he shouldn't be a priest. If a psychologist breaks confidence, he shouldn't be a psychologist. Whether it's an "outing" or a "gossipping" or a "violation"-- it's definitely wrong.

Mind you, I don't know that it did happen yet, but I thought I owed it to JzG to ask him straight out, rather than letting PM just make the allegations and letting them float. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no point in complaining about "outing" PM to ArbCom when most of ArbCom are checkusers and the rest will be privvy to the ArbCom mailing list where such things are discussed. Thatcher131 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "outing" to arbcom. I encourage consultation with Arbcom. If he had a real concern, the responsible thing for Guy to do would be to ask the arbcom to rule whether or not to block PM. What I am WORRIED about, however, is the allegation that Guy basically told any other editors/admins that he felt like telling-- i.e. that Guy is inherently untrustworthy with private information. Again, I'm not saying this is true, that's why I'm asking straight out. --Alecmconroy 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it highly unethical and a most serious breach of trust if Guy had shared this information with anyone who didn't already have it. I trusted Guy, in a bid to facilitate a dialog which he manifestly rejected. I might add that I believe checkuser data to only remain active for 30 days. I would like to demand a straight answer to Alec's reasonable question above. Privatemusings 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who know are: the arbitrators, Jimbo, and a *very* small number of people I trust implicitly (wioth far more sensitive data about myself) whose opinion I sought in a completely private forum as a sanity check rather than simply relying on gut feel. The risk to privacy is negligible, I'd say. And if not, well, then I'm sorry, but a checkuser would have turned up the same and I was actually trying to avoid outing the main account. I would note that the main reason was to eliminate a number of suspicions which people have raised here and elsewhere. I will confirm that the main account is not a prolific or high profile editor, not a sysop, and almost certainly not who you think it is. And that's all that need be said. This account is traceable at two removes to the user's RWI, and I'm certainly not going to go about publishing that kind of information. If you trust me, then you also have to trust my judgement on who I can talk to in confidence. If you don't trust me, don't send me email. Frankly the amount of drama here is out of all proportion to the mainspace contributions of all the accounts this user has used. Or at least those he's told me about. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser have been run in the first place? As I said before, we are only concerned if this editor was gaming consensus or disrupting wikipedia; in which case a checkuser could - and almost certainly would - have been submitted by someone who was not in possession of privileged information. Instead, a block was carried out by an involved admin on someone who was editing in support of what appears to be the consensus version of a difficult page. If the presence of privileged information indicated to you that WP was being disrupted on that page or on related pages, it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the individual who provided you with that information - as privately as you were told in the first place. Instead you have claimed that, in effect, a single editor who chooses to use two accounts to edit in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles - even if the principles themselves were not blockworthy. That is not policy as written. I would find it deeply disturbing if it were. That is why all the drama. Relata refero 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an alternate account used for the single purpose of advocating contentious policy, which has stepped outside the bounds of that in order to edit-war over contentious content. I am wondering how many times I need to explain this. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand alternate accounts cannot add contentious content any more?

Just because it was created in order to advocate certain changes does not mean that it violates policy to make contentious edits in line with those changes, unless those edits themselves violate policy. Relata refero 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that would depend. If the alternate account is being used to add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest, as here, then it's pretty clearly an abuse of the alternate account. Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour. Wikipedia is not a social network or a drama club, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle and removal of such links must be resisted, the harder it gets to remove links to banned editors trying to push their POV and mad theories into Wikipedia, and the more time we all waste on sterile debate while they continue to nudge the ocntent their way through sockpuppets, meatpuppets and even the occasional long-time user acting as a proxy. Of course, they have mutually conflicting desires: to use Wikipedia to promote their agenda, but simultaneously to wreck Wikipedia. I'd rather they failed in both aims, myself. The stakes are high for these kooks: they are on a holy crusade to bring [[[WP:TRUTH|The Truth™]] to the world and correct the lies and conspiracies promoted by those pesky reliable sources we are so keen on. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"To add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest." Right, that's what I thought. In other words, account X exists, it makes a statement about a policy debate, realises that this is going to create too much drama, so it creates account Y to further engage with that policy debate, and ceases to use account X (or at least, largely ceases using X in that area). Is this what you imply is blockworthy? If so, I damn well think a bit more drama is required.

("Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour." Nice going! About as subtle as a ton of bricks. Don't get distracted, please. I'm not here to waste my time talking to you, but to continue to edit. Indeed, if you stop and think for a moment, it will be stunningly obvious why your actions recklessly imperil even the most innocent successor account. Which is why I am "piling into" this debate. But still, much easier to throw around remarks about suspicions, eh?)

Finally: any attempt to claim that links to harassment websites are the main problem at WP is in itself problematic. The problem is not those links, which as far as I am concerned can stay or go. The problem is the behaviour of the guardians of our freedom to edit, which, as evidenced by you just now, steps over the line into chilling our ability to edit. Relata refero 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem at WP right now is not harassment websites. It is simply that there is too much drama, and our response to it is ineffective. That is caused and exacerbated, in my view, by two major factions... those that are here specifically to cause drama rather than being here to write an encyclopedia, and those well meaning but misguided folk that play into their hands by overturning sound blocks, or by defending even the worst trollish behaviour on process grounds, on "give them another chance" grounds and what have you. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the outing question, if I understand position that Privatemusings has taken in the debates over policies, it would be OK if someone outed a RL or main account identity on a blog and if we linked to that blog in the course of normal encyclopedia writing. If it's OK to link to outing then maybe outing isn't such a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In what universe will blocking people you disagree with over policy with the flimsiest of pretexts not increase drama? That universe is one in which WP will be pretty poorly written. Relata refero 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw

(uindent) Guy says: the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle

Guy, you have just made a personal attack. You have called Private MUsings and Dan Tobias troll-enablers, implied they are affiliated with an external site, and suggested that they are part of a campaign to distract and deceive.

RETRACT your statement and apologize, CLARIFY that you didn't mean to say anything bad about PM or DanT, or PRESENT evidence to me that they really are involved in such a campaign. These sort of bullying tactics have gone on long enough. Either DanT and PM are good faith editors acting on principle and worthy of your respect, or they're bad faith editors just here to pull your leg. If you are going to make these wild allegations in public, I want you to at least email whatever evidence you have to suggest the PM and DanT are acting in bad faith. I'm sure PM and DanT will consent to letting me know whatever it is that you know.

After all that you've done today, that you would start namecalling, it appears you have learned absoultely nothing. If your secret evidence holds up, then I'll apologize, I'll apologize with bells on. If, however, you're full of crap, I think it's time for a user conduct RFC or another arbcom case. NPA applies to EVERYONE-- even you. --Alecmconroy 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I will not retract it, because it's what I honestly believe. Sincere people are being cynically manipulated by individuals whose principal interest is not aligned in any way with Wikipedia's aims. The fact that they are sincere people does not in any way reduce the impact of what they do. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Dan and PM to be the sincere people? or the cynical manipulators? --Alecmconroy 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User Guy may be perceived as Wikipedian cowboy, but he has never (in my view) exploited WP in any way. He also deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand User Alecmconroy states on his user page: "I don't care how wonderful Jimbo is, no one person deserves special authority over the will of the people" and he ends with "If we were going have an election for Jimbo the position, Jimbo the person would get my vote." Someone with beliefs like these is either a confused individual or have a problem with authority. I think he is both, and since he is not an admin and obviously too close to the subjects being discussed ( see his userpage and his "an essay on Badsites"). I think it would be best to remove or scratch from this discussion all his comments off the record. Jrod2 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrod, have you READ WP:NPA? Way to go--- i complain about personal attacks, and you personally attack me. Beautiful. --Alecmconroy 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand the comments. His position nor his closeness to the issue have any bearing regarding the content of the statements. Either the content is valid or it is not. Bringing it up does not assume good faith. We are all here to build a better encyclopedia. Spryde 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I fear that is not correct. Not all of us are here for that purpose. And of those that think they are here for that, (I count myself among that grouping) I am not sure that all of us are actually effective at it, so that makes at least three groupings, as I said elsewhere in this thread. If you do not recognise that, then I think that is an issue. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey user Spryde, maybe I don't understand user Alecmconroy's comments, but please don't give me the AGF shenanigan. Either you know Guy and respect and appreciate him for what he contributes to WP, or you don't. Jrod2 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I support some of what Guy has done. I object to other things. Overall I say he has done wonderful things but this is not one of them. People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be. And please do not call AGF shenanigans. I could have attacked your contribution much worse than I did but I AGF'ed and hoped that you did not understand the comments. That is all. Spryde 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Spryde, should I thank you for your benign comment too? Please, get off your high horse. First, you stated that I was not assuming good faith and that my comments weren't valid to this argument and now you are being benign because "you could have attacked" me much worse? What kind of a silly game is this?. If, I go by your statement: "People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be", I would speedy close this case. Jrod2 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to have a civil and productive conversation with you about this incident. I am not playing any games nor am I on any 'high horse'. I stated the comments you made were not appropriate because of the meaning of the statements made by Alecmconroy. I sincerely hope you are not twisting my words to prove a point. My statement about perfection is clear and taking it to extremes is illogical and absurd. Good day (night), sir. Spryde 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Spryde, I am respectfully asking you to stop disrupting this discussion. I don't want to waste space on this section defending myself and my NPOV to you. Your initial comment was to me insulting and you missed my point entirely. I only thought that the statements on Alec's user page were relevant and consistent with someone who have some strong opinions about authority and the establishment itself and that should be examined. That could have explained why he chooses to have a conflict with Guy and his ways. I also asked that he stops all this. Now, that he wants Guy to apologize is to me a contradiction, there can be an element of thirst for authority if someone is trying to humble admin Guy. But again, you can accuse me of AGF violations, so I am going to refrain from making further comments. I would have stopped long ago had you not accuse me of not assuming good faith. Ultimately, I have come to terms with Alec's position and I wish him good luck. But, he has a long road (in my view) if he wants to prove that admin Guy deserves to lose his admin tools. Jrod2 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it would be awful if Guy were to lose his admin tools. I don't want that-- I want him to stop misusing them and to stop attacking people --Alecmconroy 07:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy you are waaay off the mark with your views on dans and PMs attack site linking. They simply reject the idea of instant censorship. And of course the drama is not being kept going by those who are trying to dicuss the policy (when they get a chance to discuss it without being labelled trolls) it is being kept going by people like yourself, who, in seeing this issue in black and white, label them trolls, claim their opinion is worthless because they are of that opinion and run around like a bull in a china shop trying to strip the links from long archived talk pages. Thats what creates drama, because you appear to have no concept of a civildiscussion - instead you blow your top, overreact and bingo, wikidrama ensues. Please try and think about that one. At no point has dan or PM said they advocate harrasment, they simply do not believe in thought crime. Viridae^Talk 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, I think it's rude for you to call Guy a "bull in a china shop." Please don't engage in argumentum ad hominem. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is critiscism of his method, so its a tad hard (ie not possible) to avoid ad hominem comments - when I am crisicising his approach, then I have to make my arguments "to the man". Bull in a china shop is not an insult anyway, it is simply a comment on the unsubtle way he conducts himself, which serves to magnify drama wherever he goes. Viridae^Talk 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I am sorry if you perceive my remarks as a "personal attack". Guy said something which you are using now to discredit him. Is that a personal attack? If it's not, then me bringing up your views on authority and BADSITES should not be considered one either.In addition, I am not comfortable with the tone of your comments against admin Guy. Have you crossed the line with WP:AGF yourself? I am not here to judge that, but I am not going to sit idle and let a good admin be treated like scam. Is it possible that you maybe biased on this dispute? I am just asking questions and the only thing I thought would be fair to this argument, is that you distance yourself from it. Thank you. Jrod2 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No harm done-- and I'm sure everyone is aware that I speak as someone who opposed BADSITES, and therefore, if opposing BADSITES is grounds for blocking, as Guy seems to have indicated, obviously, I might well expect similar treatment as PM has gotten.

However, we have a serious NPA problem going on in this dialog. There is a campaign of harassment and defamation trying to allege that I, PM, DanT, GTBacchus, and others are allied with hate sites. I've tried ignoring these attacks, and they continued. I've tried pleading for it to stop, and they continued. I'd tried mocking them, and they've continued. I've tried using forceful language, and they've continued. So, now, what am I left with?

And Guy's as good a place to start as any. Either stands by his allegations or he does not. If he stands by his allusions, he should prove them, and all us anti-badsites trolls should be banned. On the other hand, if his accusations are groundless and unproven, he has spent all of today dragging the names of good editors through the mud, and I expect the community to take steps to stop him from doing this in the future.

Hopefully, he'll apologize, and promise not to defame editors in the future, and that will be the end of it. --Alecmconroy 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Allegation of sockpuppet abuse

(stricken, please do no rearrange my remarks, use a diff if you like) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that gets my attention. Are you telling me that PM was simultaneously editing Robert Black (professor) under two different accounts? Cause THAT would be a major problem. As I look over the history, I see from the page history and the talk page that, in addition to Privatemusings, the disputed link's inclusion in the article has been endorsed by myself (Alecmconroy), Altacc, Phase4, SchmuckyTheCat, Sfacets, Shojo(luke), and Hyperbole. Now, without naming names-- is Private Musing one of those people? If he is, then that would definitely be a problem. --Alecmconroy 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's busy and who knows how long it's reasonable to wait for a reply-- but as the time questions like these go unanswered, my opinion tends to approach the conclusion that "No, PM hasn't actually simultaneously edited the same page at the same time under two different accounts" --Alecmconroy 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that question has actually been answered. In response to my question whether "PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about", JzG said the main account was "also active in this contentious area." In other words, not that specific article, but the harassment discussion in general. So, no, the second account did not disrupt wikipedia, but both accounts were simultaneously active in a broad sphere of policy. That is the only thing consistent with everything that's been said. Relata refero 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is crazyness. Privatemusings created this account and then was hounded by various Privatemusings-sounding like accounts (I blocked a few), culminating with User:MOASPN (who did edit that page). Now, edit warring is bad, whether through one's main account or any other. I do not, however, see the same accounts editing anywhere near the same time. I've yet to look into the whole block, I gather it was for edit warring? El_C 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My summary above: a user editing in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles. I judge this to be the case from JzG's statement above: "extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem." Relata refero 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That made me more confused, not less. El_C 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

PM's main account contributed to the discussion. PM created his secondary account for the ArbCom case: JzG thinks that was OK. Subsequently the second account did not go away, but was used to edit in contentious areas. JzG thinks that wasn't OK. There is no suggestion that they edited over the same specific issue, or in the same article; but both accounts edited in the same general area, though there is no suggestion that it happened at the same time. If you're confused, its because you're trying to understand. I'm a little confused by how this could happen myself. Relata refero 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the block was way inappropriate. CBD should have respected Guy's admin action, discussed his disagreement in a dialog with Guy and convinced him to undo it himself, or gained consensus on the noticeboard for unblocking. Leaving aside how the unblock was done, the original block was the right thing to do. Whatever privatemusings' motivation, his seeking out controversy to involve himself in does not advance the project. He should have been stayed blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside your needlessly insulting (and just plain wrong) comments, Tom, you really should also be open about the fact that you are also a party to the content dispute at Robert Black (professor) - and I would really encourage editors to take a look at the edits you have made, because as far as I can tell you are removing information expressly against consenses, without engaging on the talk page, showing no respect to traditions of our process. That is very poor form. Privatemusings 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Tom Harrison, he should be blocked, and I will block him if I have community support. Jbeach ^sup 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with the assessment that he should be blocked. There is not enough even alleged to support that, much less evidenced. I've in the last 24 hours encountered discussion over two blocks that so far as I can tell, come down to "blocked for holding an opinion I disagree with", that of KurtWeber and this one. That is not a sufficient reason for blocking, in either that case or this one. GRBerry 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block me again - I really fail to see how that could possibly help the situation. Privatemusings 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all of this, I'm left with a current impression no different than my inital impression PM was created as a legit SOCK to avoid becomeing a victim in the contentious BADSITES fight, a tailored purpose for the SOCK. That's been established now, most of the policy is ironed out, and so on. PM then runs into regular articlespace and starts enforcing the policy as he interprets it, getting into a possible revert-war with a possible 3RR. I say 'possible', because the wording of the probably policy says that there's no 3RR on that sort of removal, or did last time I reviewed it, a few days back. JzG took this as something which PM's regular account could've done, and should've, or else PM (the person) should've sat on his hands. As a result of the contentious nature of the edits, he blocked the account, saying it had served it's purpose, and was now becoming an excuse for non-meta-policy contentions, which ought to be handled by the regular account. I support this assessment. I totally understand PM's intent in protecting himself, the 'bad sites' have some sick freaks there, who can blame him/her/them/it for wanting to remain safe I don't have any problem with it in theory, although it does make its edits less credible because of a lack of experience perception behind them. However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do. I've shuffled the pronouns to the point that my eyes hurt, hope that helps. I support this block, not the unblock. However, if PM is only used from now on for meta-policy debates where exposure is bad, I can accept that. ANythign else, though, block the account and toss the key. ThuranX 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A disagreement. You are wrong in asserting that the no personal attacks policy allows 3RR violations to remove such links. The 3RR exception language was very explicitly killed, and we seem to have consensus on what language to use. This particular link had vanished from discussion at WT:NPA because the talk page there felt it had found a different reason for removal and that it was generally agreed that it was better to use reasons other than NPA when removing links from articles, but that different reason is appropriately discussed at the article's talk page rather than WT:NPA so there may or may not ever have been consensus formed around that. GRBerry 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another disagreement: "However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do." Why? Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here? Relata refero 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I stated I hadn't read it in a few days, hence the 'Possible'. Releta, PM stated that the edits from that account would specifically be for the contentious policy, not for randomly running around the project, making edits the main account could do. Further, if the editor knew those mainspace edits would be contentious, then hiding behind an alternate account to do so is contravening normal consensus building policy. Again - to protect oneself during a contentious policy debate about personal privacy makes some sense; to exploit the policies to accomplish edits which the regular account could simply find consensus for, or cite the policy to support is a problem. ThuranX 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of small points - looking at the edits you'll see that there was absolutely no violation of 3RR anywhere. It's my belief that you really have to squint at the situation to see an edit war also - but then these allegations have been largely retracted, which is good.

The irony of the whole situation, is that I can really see the points in your comments about appropriate use of accounts, and would have welcomed dialog on this - or at least notification that I was behaving in a way some felt to cross a hitherto undefined line (it's certainly not in any guideline yet - perhaps that's the more appropriate venue for discussion of this type). I've tried to respond immediately and politely to every concern raised with me - but what made me so upset and angry was from out of nowhere to be slap-banned forever and my talk page protected. I further believe there to have been serious ethical lapses, but would like at the moment for the whole situation just to calm down. I'm serving tea on my talkpage, if someone can bring the biscuits then we can leave AN/I alone. Privatemusings 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You were never banned. One of your alternate accounts was blocked. You said ahead of time that you were using this account because you expected that your edits would generate "anger or hot feeling", other words for disruption. You apprently knew it would be controversial so you explained your motivation ahead of time. So, how was this response unexpected? You knew the use of a sock puppet would be controversial because questions were raised about your previous use of sock accounts. Now you've said that you are going to "edit solely using this account",[4] rendering pointless its use in the first place. I hope that commitment includes sticking to one account in the future. Using sock puppet accounts is not an acceptable and non-disruptive method for engaging in activity likely to result in "anger or hot feeling". If we aren't willing to take the heat that our actions may cause then perhaps we shouldn't take those actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be indefinitely blocked with no warning was hugely unexpected. My decision to stop editing with my other account is an attempt to calm and resolve the situation. Your proposals for WP:SOCK may well gain interest and approval, but should be implemented there. Privatemusings 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You did expect to generate "anger and hot feeling". Intentionally generating anger and hot feelings is disruptive, and some might call it "trolling". WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here. May I ask if your user page announcement is in fact a commitment to use only one account in the future? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved, but not breached, unless WP:SOCK has been rewritten since the block. I have made this point above. Relata refero 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Predicting that one's perspective may make people angry with you is not at all synonymous with 'trolling' which of course also requires that to be the sole purpose of your maintaining it. <rant> In fact, for the record, I have found every single instance of the use of that word, not just referring to me, but all over the wiki, to be singularly unhelpful. It's just a rubbish way of making a point. </rant - not directed at Will specifically>. But yes, I have made a firm commitment to only edit using this account. Privatemusings 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and attacks

Okay, so now I've had enough of the trolling, harassment and personal attacks towards me diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 and the articles I'm involved in by 84.45.220.163 (talk · contribs) as a result of the Drake Circus and Drake Circus Shopping Centre debacle. This self professed student (aka a SPA account that is only being used for trolling etc) has taken exception to the work I've done on WP and is now attempting to disrupt to make a WP:POINT. He's constantly trolling on talk pages, making vandalistic edits (c/w non-civil edit summaries) and generally being a nuisance. I have no good faith left, I have no civility left. This Drake Circus nonsense has gone on for 2 days now and I'm pissed off with the constant crap coming in my direction. Could an administrator take charge before I find myself getting blocked for incivility. I've managed to get bugger all of any note done today just trying to sort the crap left behind by these morons. AnonEMouse has been graciously dealing with another anon IP doing the same thing and Jéské caught the admin flak yesterday. Thanks. ---- WebHamster 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for vandalism and trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to consider 217.42.76.143 as that anon seems to have the same MO as the other IP. spryde | talk 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a checkuser out on Yiwentang and (almost, if not) all the IPs from yesterday. I have not added 217.42.76.143 to it, and I can't recall offhand if I added the other one. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also a possibility that Andytempt (talk · contribs) is either a sockpuppet or one of the SU meatpuppets. IrishGuy has been kind enough to nip him in the bud though. ---- WebHamster 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We're getting overrun, add Harrybevan (talk · contribs) to the list. His MO is the same as the others, with the exception that he doesn't seem to vandalise, just troll... yet! ---- WebHamster 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And another SPA joins the Drake Circus circus. 86.146.138.94 (talk · contribs) is already handing out attacks and incivility here and based on the edit summaries in his contrib list he seems keen to be blocked. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Add them to the CU request as they pop up, please. It hasn't been responded to yet, and if we find that these are Yiwentang socks... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CU Results

The Checkuser came back Likely that Yiwentang is using the IPs, but I didn't provide evidence for the named accounts. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment

Can someone skim a second pair of eyes over this AfD, which (aside from degenerating into a farce of sockpuppetry) is starting to fill up with bizarre BLP violations and vague allegations of interference by the Cabal, all by the (almost)-SPA Farstriker (talk · contribs)? As I've already posted a fair amount to this AfD - and apparently am now part of the Cabal myself - it would probably be less likely to end in a reversion/block cycle if someone who hasn't commented did any necessary snipping.

Also, if I am now a member of the Cabal, I'd like to lodge my extreme displeasure that neither the groupies nor the secret Wikimedia gold bullion have turned up yet. — iridescent 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored the really egregious part and left a friendly message. Your cabal certificate and pin are in the mail, along with the key card to access the gold bullion stored at your local branch of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the groupies have been diverted for an important strategy session at the Pentagon and will not be available for several days. --Haemo 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... (The annoying thing about that AFD is that all the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are quite right in his case.) — iridescent 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that cabal membership entitles you to access to the Bar de l'Admin Rouge on production of a block log containing at least one user whose username indicates a crusader for The Truth™. I see your block log qualifies you here. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion I do note that a fair portion content was removed prior to the the edit by Farstriker @ 1900 on the 2/11 it was this diff by Farstriker at 0100 on the 2/11.but was restored two minutes later here and his comment was removed in the reversal process in error. Gnangarra 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rkowalke insists on exposing personal details of fellow editor

User:Rkowalke is a WP:SPA that graduated from Warren National University (WNU) and now edits primarily just that article and the talk page. He has exhibited what I would characterize as an edit pattern of trying to minimize any negative information about WNU. He exhibits severe violations of WP:AGF frequently bordering on violations of WP:NPA against any editor that adds information critical of WNU to the article. He has talked about revealing what he believes is my personal name despite my protest and requests that he discuss the article and not discuss his fellow editors, [5], [6], and [7]. His editing pattern includes blatant plagiarism at which point he showed zero remorse but instead denied that copying information from the WNU website and including it without quotes or reference was plagiarism because this was for the WNU article and he wasn't claiming that he wrote it. Talk:Warren_National_University/Archive_2#Faculty_Section_plus_miscellaneous_.28plagiarism.29 He has been banned for violating WP:3RR [8]. Since his block for 3RR his edit warring has gotten much better but he has probably become even less civil. For example, he recently has insisted on posting the city location for an anon account that added an edit that he didn't like. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. TallMagic 03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic that posting the city location is highly improper, as it is clear from other contributions by this IP under what user name this IP used to edit. --Paul Pieniezny 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've deleted it five times and Rkowalke has added it in six times. He says that I am badgering him and I must produce Wikipedia policy showing that it is inappropriate or this will go on forever. Is there some explicit wording that I can reference? Thanks, TallMagic 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:I already forgot

I_already_forgot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with an otherwise unimpeachable contribution history, left this terribly inappropriate comment at this user's RfA. The nature of the comment (overtly sexual and subtly threatening in nature) is quite decidedly inappropriate, and would be seen as trolling from most any user, but, as noted, User:I already forgot hasn't done anything like this before, so there is a small chance the account could be compromised. Until he explains himself and accounts for his comment, I feel he should remained blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. The comment is completely out of step of the user's other contributions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 08:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To Catch a Predator? Block was justified. the_undertow ^talk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I received email regarding the comment after I reverted it, but even then, while the intentions of the comment were explained, they were out of line. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the edits have been explained (you may or may not disagree, but you know that the user hasn't gone batshit insane, and they haven't lost control of their account), can xe be unblocked? WODUP 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The user was likely responding (oddly and inappropriately) to this edit, in which I did say that I had no problems with pornography. However, in *this* case, my response would be akin to this, which is to say that an RfA is a completely inappropriate place to put something like that, as no one expects to see adult content in the middle of it. I support this block not because it was 'defending' me, but because there are places on Wikipedia where content of an adult nature is reasonable and to be expected (if, say, I searched for either of the terms he mentioned), and there are places where it is not. An RfA was not the place to pose the question so explicitly. --Thespian 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the block wholeheartedly. There should be no place for trolls like him in Wikipedia. MaxSem 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• A pound says this is also Forgetaboutit4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Endorse, anyway. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you exhibit poor judgment as you are not even close. I'm sure a check user has been performed many times and has shown I only use my bot account and the I already forgot account. What makes you come up with such nonsense? Just because the other user has "forgot" in his/her name? Thats some pretty shallow detective work. Sorry for being pointed but the personal attacks are not warranted.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• You guys really do not have a clue do you? Not only do you have a misunderstanding of what trolling is, you now accuse me of having sock accounts? I could insert a load of diffs to clue you in on to what is going on, but it's rather comical as I know most user cant or will not read past the first sentence. Also, please do not make completely and totally false accusation of me having sock accounts or being related to porn at all. It only makes you look more clueless as to what happen and to the other existing policies that would allow a person to ask for help with such articles. I could call up the anti censor crowed and cite WP:CENSOR(hello policy) to back me on this, but I'm neither pro or con censorship and would personally like to the image removed from the list of sex position article and the title "fist fuck" removed from the fisting article as well. Blocking me is fine, but don't make totally false slanderous accusations with out proof of such. I slandered no one, made no threats, and used wikipedia policy to ask a very controversial question whether you like it or not. Again, actually do some reading before speculating and try to make yourself informed and not so clueless. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, when is the last time a troll sent a message to an admin informing them of their intentions? I suggest a few read up on trolling so they know exactly what it is and when to turn the mop into a billyclub. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to mention this, but wouldn't it also be a good idea to block my bot and remove it's bot flag? I know how the system works better than any troll or vandal and could get away with a lot of damage as I can pretty much program anything you need done on wikipedia. If I am indeed a troll or even suspected, this should have been the first thing blocked. Just giving a heads up on how such issues should be handle by the blocking admins as I have no plan to abuse wikipedia but the bot should be blocked anyway to prevent potential abuse by a disgruntled user.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't endorse an indef block on this account. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, etc, and it's highly unlikely that there will be an further disruption as a result. Having said that, his comment was disturbing in the extreme and totally uncalled-for regardless of the rationale. Like, seriously - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the disturbing nature of the image but be aware that it is in one of our top 100 articles! The "fist ****" is in one of our articles as well! Disturbing or not, we have many user pushing for these type of pages and images and it has caused many grief in my vandal fighting. These things cannot be ignored and we need to know how admins will handle similar situations. --Anon user formely known as I already forgot70.6.66.144 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but messing around[14] on the same RfA that you posted the comment on, block evasion by socking, etc, etc is a deal-breaker for me. You've been blocked. Stand up address the root cause instead of fooling around. You've no regard for the rules you seem so concerned about - Alison ^❤ 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the length of the block. I was shocked by the inappropriate RfA comment too; both because it was replaced by the user when removed, and for the breathtaking inappropriateness of what was said. I think I understand what the user's intentions were, and those too are deeply inappropriate. RfA is not meant to be a trial by ordeal. I should note that I was just having a relatively civilised discussion with the user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Keep or remove (part 2). In my opinion, I already forgot needs to learn better how we work here; if he shows any sign of appreciating what he has done wrong and undertakes not to repeat the offensive behaviour, I would support reducing the block to a week. So far I have not really seen any evidence of this, and the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts above make me think we would not be losing much by leaving the block in place. --John 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:68.26.178.226, for evading User:I already forgot's block, based on comments made here, at User talk:I already forgot, and, Thespian's RFA. I only blocked for 24 hours, as I assume we'll have this worked out by then. SQL^{Query me!} 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You can block my account but you cant keep me from ever editing again (Hello account indef blocked). I had a feeling you where not completely ready for adminship... At least it must feel good for you to get some payback for me opposing your RFA right? No one has yet to provide a policy I violated (other than editing style), so my statements of admin abusing their powers are ringing through here. --anon user formerly known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.66.144 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So instead of fessing up to the fact that you made a mistake & apologizing, you'd rather play a game of whack-a-mole with the rest of us? Everyone has a momentary lapse of judgement, & does something wrong. If you understand why what you did was wrong, admit to having made a mistake, then this will all be over & we all can move forward & continue to improve this encyclopedia. However, if your pride is so important that you want to compound a moment's mistake with countless more -- such as this sockpuppetting foolishness -- it will only lead to the rest of us (who I bet are like me, who until now had no opinion about you good or bad) deciding to pitch in & making an indef block into a permanent community ban from Wikipedia. -- llywrch 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this when I made my previous comment. I did notice a certain pointiness in my previous dealings with him, and a willingness to argue for argument's sake, rather than be guided by consensus. Although this user has made some good contributions and is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable, unless he is willing to abide by our core values (including consensus and civility), there is nothing here for him, and nothing lost in leaving the block in place. Continuing attempts to game the system just make that more inevitable. At this point the ball is firmly in I already forgot's court. I suggest they think seriously about the choices they make from here on, if they wish to continue to contribute here. --John 20:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that this has blown up into such an issue is rather ridiculous. Of course I already forgot could have displayed much more tact and courtesy in asking his question/testing Thespian, but are we permanently blocking members for one instance of inappropriate tone in 4000+ otherwise contributing edits? Block him for a few days at most, but a permanent block is unnecessary, especially given what's usually necessary for immediate permanent blocks (trolling or vandalism-only accounts, sockpuppets, etc.). This isn't a troll's first edits, but an otherwise good member of the community slipping up once. I'm not defending the style of I already forgot's question, but it isn't something to permaban someone over. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Yom that this user could have shown much more tact in the original question. And before I encountered a browser crash, my comment to this thread was along the lines of "You did something worse than harassing someone -- you were wrong." (And this response to his misbehavior didn't help the situation.) However, he came back with a couple of sockpuppets, claiming that we can't block him; that doesn't convince anyone he's been misunderstood, & is still a valuable contributor. Then again, I haven't seen any more posts from him, so maybe he understood what I was trying to say & took a break from Wikipedia to calm down, collect his thoughts, & will engage in some constructive dialogue. That would end the block pronto, & if he had done this in the first place, it would have been over in a few hours or less. I have no problem with letting him come back; as I wrote above, I don't have an opinion about him, good or bad. My comment above was more along the lines of advice, rather than a threat from some power-hungry Admin. -- llywrch 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something we have a good 'pedia builder who said one really inappropriate comment and is indefinitely blocked. I am not sure how this is consistent with the way some other cases are handled with destructive edit wars, reverts and ample swearing in edit summaries. Why is this not a 1 or 3 day block and be done with it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block was justified before the block evasion, and now is somewhat obvious. Addhoc 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First I'm accused of being a vandal and a troll even though...

• I use POLICY to ask very valid and specific questions. Totally legitimate question on a controversial image that has been removed from an article by me and jimbo wells with both of us leaving it after other wikipedians used POLICY to keep it in the article even though the style was completely different from the other images. Not some of my best edits but I learned and grew tremendously over the issue and to work with different social standards [15].
• trolling does not include giving notice via email of ones intention.
• the questions are totally relevant to a topic (Pornography addiction) the potential admin had minor edit conflicts with [16]?
• ***A bad word*** has been a wikipedia article for some time now and asking "what is your opinion about" the article and if they would help make it a featured article (which I have no interest in doing) is a perfectly valid question.
• the question sounded a bit strange but a large portion of our user base are learning english or use english as a second language and nothing uncivil or threating was added in the question but was worded in a way that was less eloquent like a person using ESL. A potential admin should know that users are often accused of trolling or vandalism just for the simple fact they have a hard time with english. This was a valid way to ask a question during an RFA as nothing was uncivil or a violation of policy but would indicate how they handle poorly worded questions.

Then I'm accused of having a sockpuppet account [17] and being a child predator [18]. Which is totally uncivil and is slanderous given the fact that my identity is know by a few here on wikipedia. If any one of you was falsely accused of being a predator or creating a sock account, you would feel the same way... trust me. I did not make any threats about the slander and only gave notice that it's not right to make such accusations. Is this trolling or making threats, why am I accused of "the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts"? Another fire from the hip statement in my opinion.

So now I'm indef blocked ("significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy") and accept the fact that the User:I already forgot account is gone for good. No worries, I'm here for wikipedia and not to rack up an edit count. So I go ahead and communicate on the talk pages... no distributive edits, just communicating the issue at hand using an IP address instead of an account. Then an admin starts throwing blocks to the IP accounts I use even though though I have a right to invoke POLICY since my edits are not disruptive and are only meant to communicate and help wikipedia as stated in the policy. I also have a right to invoke POLICY because the indef block is not a ban but being interpreted as such and because the block is being used as punishment for using bad-words in an RFA which the policy is clear blocks are not to be used as punishment.

Then, since the account is indef blocked, I make the statement that I cannot be kept from ever editing again (and yes, I expect admins to know the difference from WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN) since the block is potentially forever, that I can still contribute constructively using an IP account. So with that statement I'm now taunting the block? No, I'm saying that since the account is blocked indefinitely and I'm not trying to get it back, that I can still contribute constructively without and account.

Well I guess thats another strike against me, because now I'm accused of creating sock accounts (which by definition is incorrect) even though no trolling, deception, or any type of vandalism has been done. Is this how the mop is used? Or is stating "adminship is no big deal" and acting as if they wield a mop instead of a billy club just part of the curtsy and walk down the isle of approval to adminship? I feel adminship is in fact a big deal depending on the user and should be looked at as a big deal during the RFA. Only after the RFA process should it be looked at as not a big deal. I know that my opinion goes against Jimbo's and consensus opinion on adminship, but I see how things are much different from a few years ago and how we must evolve with the changes. I hope this can be an example of how the admins can turn a mop into a rifle and fire from the hip with out knowing how to enforce policy or understanding the issues at hand. Yes I used bad-words, yes my RFA question was loaded and very complicated, but does that warrant firing from the hip??? Who knows??? I'm sure now I will be accused of attacking admins when all I'm trying to do is communicate that we have issues with admins pushing personal editing styles and using the mop as a billy club without true consensus. Take it as constructive communication or keep making accusations of trolling, either way, I'm not worried as I'm just a volunteer not looking for some sort of personal gratification other than losing a good encyclopedia. But on the bright side, I have hard copies that I should really get back to using anyway... Nothing can replace the smell of an old book and a silent keyboard. --User formerly known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.194.80 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

José Galisteo

Resolved

 – Material has been removed as WP:BLP violation

The subject of this article (which I wrote) has emailed me, demanding that we remove all gay references (even the fact that he performed at Europride and that he has gay fans) and all references to the fact that he served in the military. All contentious material is sourced and the article was vetted by several editors, including an admin. I even found a Spanish speaking editor to read the source material, just to double check my translation. Since I was emailed, I posted this on The LGBT Project talk page, where the consensus was that as it is sourced it should stand. I posted it to the BLP Noticeboard, too, but that page is not well trafficked, alas, so I am posting here to get a wide community consensus on how to proceed. I have emailed Galisteo, explaining Wikipedia policies and saying the article is currently being reviewed to ensure conformity with said policies. He emailed me once again, reiterating that the material should be removed, and saying his fan club site is the best source of information. He has also reverted both the English and Spanish articles. Please review. I will not be editing this article myslef for the foreseeable future, as I feel it would be a conflict of interest as both the article's creator and a fan of Galisteo (though this incident has made me see him in a different light). Jeffpw 09:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the email was web based (hotmail) so there is no way to actually verify it is the subject himself or somebody else. I am assuming good faith and going with the presumption that it is actually him. Jeffpw 09:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask him to mail OTRS (info-en-q@wikimedia.org) detailing precisely what the problem is, and which text is inaccurate, preferably with some kind of evidence. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I read the sources, it's tricky; because of the way they're written, it's not clear if the interviews are actually quoting him or if they are quoting what was found on the internet. Can others who speak Spanish please look over what I wrote on the BLP board. It's a question of whether he has self-identified as gay, or whether the magazines are merely repeating blog-fueled rumors, and it's hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

the pest of Plymouth

For some time now there has been a tiresome campaign by somebody using a series of UIDs and IP numbers -- or conceivably more than one person, with remarkably similar obsessions and propensities to mock, whinge, vandalize, bluster, threaten, misread and make spelling mistakes -- who's most worked up about (i) what he thinks is the dreadfulness and insignificance (odd combination, yes) of Drake Circus Shopping Centre (Plymouth, SW England; a town of which I know little), (ii) its alleged misappropriation of the name Drake Circus, and (iii) the systemic failures of WP evidenced by its biased coverage of this and other Plymouth-related stuff. (And predictably he also says WP is a mere joke.) On occasion he's been countered by an apparent defender of the shopping centre, though I've wondered if the defender is real or merely a rhetorical device.

Both articles have been sprotected (which seems odd for something so local), but after ranting on the talk pages he's been posting tiresome squib after tiresome squib there, some of them at least appearing to ask a valid question (until one realizes that it merely demonstrates a wilful refusal to read an earlier response). WebHamster, I and others have been doing our best to answer him or (since he's clearly uninterested in answers other than as fuel for more trolling) swatting him away. On occasion, of course, we've got slightly wound up or even fed the troll: if you bother to go through the verbiage, you'll see miscellaneous, er, civility malfunctions of mine.

I'm tempted to be BOLD and announce that I'll delete anything even smelling of trollery; but even if that were permissible, implementing it would probably just encourage him to fan out to other articles: as it is, he's conveniently localized. The troll hasn't managed to irritate me except in the considerable amount of time he has wasted. For this, assistance would be welcome; a new (and "killer"?) countermeasure that I haven't thought of even more welcome. -- Hoary 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm being incivil, Hoary, but I've been monitoring those discussions, and I can't help thinking that you have fanned the flames of his ire by continually replying to his every remark (not exactly, but you know what I mean). I'm far less experienced here than you, of course, but once a person's credentials are established as "troll", I always thought that the best policy is to simply monitor their input and only respond when necessary (when a valid clearly-stated point is made, or with a standard warning, as appropriate). This is how such people used to be dealt with on Usenet, for instance. Hope this helps, Smalljim 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right, Jim. Perhaps one problem has been that there has been more than one person dealing with him: I've thought that if I didn't respond then Hamster or you or someone else would have to, and Hamster may have thought similarly. Meanwhile, please don't worry about being less than civil to me: (i) you weren't at all, and (ii) being pretty thick-skinned, I wouldn't have minded if you had been. -- Hoary 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, old man. As you're hinting, when taking part in discussions on any public forum it's important to bear in mind all the other people who will read your contributions. Too many people, I think, focus exclusively on the individual they're immediately replying to.

It's true that in cases like this one it can be tricky to communicate your desire to other potential participants not to continue the discussion with the troll. I don't think there is any quick and painless solution. Silence won't work. Neither will calls to Please stop!... Strident calls for everyone to send the troll to Coventry will usually be ignored ("who's he to say what I do?") and would probably violate some guideline here. However short replies to the troll along the lines of "I am not going to reply until you phrase your comments in a relatively polite and coherent manner" can be useful because the other potential participants often take the hint, especially if you are seen to be in a position of some authority. The one thing that trolls cannot tolerate is sunlight being ignored.

You probably know all this already. I'm sure I've read it somewhere; I'm not bright enough to have made it up myself! --Smalljim 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So a quick castration and a soak in a salt bath isn't the way to go then? ---- WebHamster 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a screenshot copy of your comments to the WP headquarters for review (and before you yet again delete them.) I cannot believe their reputation or credibility should continue to be damaged in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.102.112 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote Sergeant Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis." Rdfox 76 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe those should check out all the deletions made to this article by WebHamster and look at the reasons for them. He is consistently blocked anyone from trying to establish the true facts by infesting any reasonable discussion with trolling and insulting remarks. His repeated timing, language and style co-incides with a user 'Hoary' to a degree that any reasonable person would infer they are one in the same user.

---

Webhamster

I nominated Drake_Circus_Shopping_Centrefor deletion. From the perspective of those in the Drake Circus District remember these are just some of the reasons behind Webhamsters deletion of content, references, discussion and blocking other users:-

Please see the horse's mouth for details. ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

its out of date - the same URL also states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006."

"So far we only have your word that the website is out of date." WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"I repeat the website reads "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006."

Who are you to say that the article isn't informative or educational? You are being far too parochial. Two days ago I'd never heard of the place, now I've been educated on how disruptive some of the locals can be. I've been informed that the official website is a year out of date. Just because you already know the details does not mean that someone else does. You are saying a lot but yet no pointers to verifiable sources. WP does not take peoples' words for it, not yours, not mine. So back up your statements with available sources that meet WP:RS and we'll make the changes. It can't be put any simpler than that. We most certainly aren't experts on DCSC, but we do know how WP works and what is expected. Likewise from the WP standpoint you aren't an expert either, you are just some anonymous IP address, you have no verifiable credentials of your expertise. You may be a local but that's not the same thing. This being the case anything you tell us here comes under the banner of original research which is why we need verifiable sources. ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)"

"Out of interest why was the link to Plymouth's other shopping mall - the Armada_Centreremoved? If it was because it had nothing to do with drake circus or was outside the area then why has the link to the drakecircus shopping centre also not been removed"

The Armada Centre was removed, based on the edit summary, because it isn't actually in the Drake Circus area WebHamster 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"The reason you gave to justify your vandalism was 'WP is not a phone book'. In case you had failed to observe the article did not list any telephone numbers moreover it referred to a university and a musuem which most reasonably intelligent people would assume has more to do within the academic research of an encyclopedia than a promo for selling spuds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"

Stirring stuff -- I think, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you think this person's first language might be, Hamster? -- Hoary 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The one practised by Stanley Unwin I'm guessing. It doesn't bode well for the teaching standards of UK educational establishments though. ---- WebHamster 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're stuck with it. I suggest you learn to live with it. The chances are it'll still be there when you've left Uni and gone on to bigger and better things. meanwhile I suggest you concentrate on things that are far more important, like avoiding being a graduate working at the Spud-U-Like you despise so much. ---- WebHamster 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from? ---- WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a clue what else has been said by webhamster on other users discussion pages however i think in any discussion of 'trolling' account should be taken of the above quotes. Since i worked in the Old Drake Circus i thought i could correct some of the claims charged to my old work place however i have been subjected to a tirrade of insulting snipes from the above despite my best attempts at being polite and lucid. I suspect others like me are too intimidated to create user accounts.

---

Dreckly, moi 'ansum. LessHeard vanU 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat on the Helpdesk

Resolved

An IP user has just posted a rant on the helpdesk. [19] Among the text of the rant, which apparently blames Wikipedia for them not being able to access Google on their mobile, is a threat to contact the FCC. Now while I know that the FCC won't be able to do anything about it, I still believe it goes against WP:LEGAL. I would respond, but in these situations, I usually piss them off or make the situation worse in some other way. I believe that a sysop needs to take action. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. We have no place this kind of crap on Wikipedia. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At least we can get a good laugh out of it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not bite a newbie. It is not a legal threat. I would have said "I am sorry that you feel that wikipedia is affecting your google access. If you have further information, please let me know. Your help in resolving this matter, even if it involves the FCC, is more productive than a potentially hostile complaint where you don't give us enough information to solve a potential problem." The user did not threaten to sue. That's a legal threat. Making an ordinary complaint is not a legal threat as much as complaining to ArbCom is not a legal threat. I would block only if the response was hostile. I do suspect this is a crank. Miesbu 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A "legal threat" isn't only a threat of a lawsuit. It can also be a threat to call the police, a threat to contact federal authorities (such as the FCC), etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing of user:Ireland101

This user is notifying ethnic Macedonian users about a vote for deletion of a few ethnic Macedonian songs. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Image Copyright Issues

Could an administrator have a look at these uploads? I don't think any of them are fair use-able, and in any case, they've all be taken off a website. I include below the post on my talk page which alerted me to the problem, as I think it explains the problem best:

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I've noticed you've dealt with this before. I am new to the uploading of images issue. However, I've noticed an image that has been uploaded and being used on an article claiming that it is a fair-use image and a screenshot of a television program. In reality, it is not a screenshot, rather an image taken by a photographer placed on website with a policy stating "(Company Name) does not issue licenses for internet use." Obviously, this detail was not in plain view but was easy to find. How would I go about this? Again, I'm new to the images issues. I hope you can shed some light on this. Thank you.

I also think that quite a few of them may be reposted material. Is this allowed? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sakis Rouvas

I just deleted the whole article as one of the worst WP:BLP violations I seen. The whole article was unsourced fancruft, and there was a section called personal life saying that he was gay with a source of a blog, and a whole bunch of gay speculations. Need more eyes. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article was a mess, start again form a stub was the only real option IMO. And more watchlists with that article on them would help, too. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there were decent revisions further back in the history, prior to 16 December 2006. I'll undelete the previous history and revert to that version, if you don't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, taking this back. The homosexuality allegations were there for much longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bleh it was there since May of 2005, and before that it was re-written copyvio seems like, no salvagble version This is a Secret ^account 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Only three 2004 versions had no issue, so those are restored This is a Secret ^account 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated harassment

Resolved

It's a shame that I have to waste your time, but someone, please, have a look at what's happening to my talk page: [20]. It seems two accounts have been created with the single purpose to harass me by false accusations: Special:Contributions/HyperColony. Special:Contributions/QuinellaAlethea. I'm certain, they'd cease their attacks, if some admin or any other long-term user asked. Thanks for your attention. --NotSarenne 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just consulted with User:Dmcdevit, HyperColony is on tor, and QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton. Fnagaton is currently unblocked. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My greatest thanks to both of you! This is a relieving albeit sad turn of events. Until the last minute, I did not expect him to go this far and assumed it was a third-party trying to make fun of me and him. --NotSarenne 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not connected with User:QuinellaAlethea. Fnagaton 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that he used the same dirty trick against Sarenne before and succeeded in getting him blocked? --NotSarenne 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarenne was blocked for using multiple sock puppets to do sweeping kib/mib/etc. edits across Wikipedia after consensus swung in a direction he didn't like, and even after when informed to cease and desist by admins. Even proponents of kib/mib/etc. usage during the MOSNUM consensus debates were calling his edits disruptive. Its all archived on the MOSNUM talk page as well as Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Sarenne. Sarenne's actions got him blocked, not any "dirty tricks" by anyone. Don't confuse this situation with that. --Marty Goldberg 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_B1 and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_B6. On the latter, just search for the first occurence of "Strawman". With all due respect (I mean that) User:Fnagaton is hardly ever making any valid arguments and constantly dismissing facts. User:SLi points this out in this thread. Fnagaton is also accusing people of being straw men there. I don't see how I am confusing anything. He has used straw men against me and even worse accused me that those were my straw men. It is exactly the same kind of behaviour, except that this time he made some obvious mistakes and got caught. I cannot read all of the history but I don't see any strong evidence that those anonymous edits can be linked to User:Sarenne. In fact, the report says, it's not possible. Further, I've been accused of writing like User:Sarenne but my style is clearly quite different. So these accusation appear made-up against better knowledge. I absolutely cannot understand how those discussion led to a change of WP:MOSNUM when User:Matt_Britt, User:Seraphimblade, User:Omegatron, User:Aluvus, even User:Sarenne and several others provide logically undeniable arguments. All I can conclude is that supporters got tired of running in circles due to complete ignorance of facts and logic. You always have to reinterprete the past whenever new insights surface. So now that User:Fnagaton has been caught using socket puppets, how can we still accept the voting on this issue? There was at best a 50:50 result after all those discussion which means the status quo has to be preserved. Instead WP:MOSNUM has been modified. It's all very fishy. This requires further investigation. --NotSarenne 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is you who is not providing any strong argument just like the other users you cite. The change to MOSNUM happened because consensus was reached and that is clearly shown in the archives, basically there were many more editors for the change than the tiny minorty who were against the change. I have also not been using sock puppets, you have been using sock puppets with Tor just like Sarenne did. I demand you stop spreading those lies right now. Fnagaton 12:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing even more evidence of your dubious behaviour. In case you forgot: You have just been convicted of sock puppetry, just scroll up. --NotSarenne 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a mistake by the admin looking at the case and I'm getting it sorted out. Fnagaton 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with your personal opinion vs. fact. Your initial writing style and conduct here was indeed the same, enough to bring the concern of a group of people. Even your propensity to argue nonstop on every point and your usage of dismissive circular reasoning ("Well that's not right because I say so, so this is obviously made up") is the same. Your clear attempt to alter your writing style over the past week is simply that, a conscious effort to change how your involvement is perceived. Likewise, Fnagton's claimed recent use of sock puppets has absolutely nothing to do with the results of consensus at WP:MOSNUM, and this page has nothing to do with such happenings. The fact that you agree with one group's arguments over the other also has no bearing on how the results went, as if because you agree with one group suddenly that makes the whole well established and used process on Wikipedia "fishy". Nor does it render the fact that by your own self admission 50% did not agree with that group and did not perceive them as "logically undeniable arguments" (even though the count against kib/mib usage was much higher). Nor does it make them "ignorant of facts and logic", that sort of condescending attitude is exactly again what Sarenne promoted. This is all exactly why you're being viewed as a disruptive editor, and directly linked to him. The so called "logic group" was also originally accused of "arguing until supporters of not using kib/mib/etc. got tired of running in circles" when they initially changed MOSNUM to that kib/mib/etc. format months before that - yes, the last consensus debate was simply one of many. The current version was created by editors from *both camps* after it was decided there was no actual consensus here on one usage over the other, and that the text of the previous version promoted disruptive editing practices. Hence the text of the current guidelines were laid out, via a concerted effort from both camps. Your nonstop and continued attempt to invalidate and discredit the previous WP:MOSNUM happenings by trying to use every perceived and unrelated disagreement against your opinions, is both condescending and disrespectful to all those who participated in the well established consensus process. And you've been doing it on every single talk page you've been writing to. You are *not* going to get an admin here to change WP:MOSNUM based on your personal opinions or perceptions, that is not the scope of the administrators' notice board, nor is it how Wikipedia works. It runs on well established processes and guidelines, not on "NotSarenne's opinions on how things should work". --Marty Goldberg 12:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, pretty much everything except the sock puppetry that I said about User:Fnagaton could be applied to you as well. As you're acting just like him. You're also not exactly demonstrating good will with reverts such as this one. Just like User:Fnagaton you believe I don't have the right to defend myself and clarify things, so you're just removing my responses. Yes, you are allowed to do this on your own talk page but there's a difference between legally' right and morally right. --NotSarenne 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A revert of yet another attempt to insert your self in to a discussion on my talk page has nothing to do with any of the proceedings here, the WP:MOSNUM results, nor does it make you a mind reader. I removed it because I didn't care to get in to yet another circular reasoning debate with you on yet another talk page. It was filled with yet more accusations (did I put a 3RR warning on your page? I don't recall doing that), more dismissive directives (its incorrect for me to do many things simply because they go against your viewpoints and opinions apparently), and a claim that the admin's finding of sock puppetry was some how also a finding of false claims against you. You're also claiming for some odd reason that I don't think you have the right to "defend" your self, when your recent monopolization of talk pages to argue your circular reasoning shows anything but the opposite. A simple look at your "contributions" to discussions shows you'd be hard pressed to claim any sort of censorship of your opinions and viewpoints. So once again, don't try use one thing to discredit another. It simply promotes the viewpoint everyone is having on you. --Marty Goldberg 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, inserting myself into a discussion about me. You're always twisting my words and are trying to distort what I say. I did not claim you had put a WP:3RR on my page. I wrote that I am convinced you tried to trick me into a 3RR violation. I was smart enough though to not revert it once more and instead rephrased the bogus statement in question. You had to accept that in order to not commit a 3RR violation yourself and you didn't even notice that my version makes it obvious that the whole statement is bogus (and should therefore still be removed). Where do I monopolize talk pages? I never used the term censorship either. Actually, you're removal of my valid responses are not censorship but simply manipulative by making certain discussions single-sided. I'm quite impressed that you know what everyone thinks about me. --NotSarenne 14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say is a matter of record here, no need for me to distort anything. But its ironic you're saying that with the claims and directives you've all addressed at me. Let me make it clear: 3RR never entered my mind and was not a driving force. I'm glad you were smart enough to formulate a plan for that fantasy, and here I thought your were just trying to compromise like a normal editor. Likewise, its your *opinion* that your statement on my talk page clarified things. Its your *opinion* that the responses on my talk page was valid. You claimed I don't want your viewpoint to be heard - that's a claim of censorship. Likewise, a simple look at your "contributions" history shows where your debates have monopolized talk pages, and in fact since you "popped up" on Wikipedia, I have yet to see a conversation where you do not cause and continue to stroke a debate. Even look at this page, where you took a discussion on sock puppets and started drawing it in to a discussion on the validity of WP:MOSNUM consensus. Then from one paragraph to the next you've thrown in to one thing after another after another, further obfuscating things. Regardless of your propensity to argue and debate (and I'm sure you'll want to throw up yet another response), there really is no point in continuing this unless it has anything to do with the sock puppet issue. That's the incident the admins here were addressing, and that's what this section of the Administrator's incident noticeboard is in regards to. But please, drag it further away from that issue and respond again like you have for the last several paragraphs. You'll find your self arguing with your self though, as the sockpuppet issue is the only discussion I'll be participating (and even then only if the admin's respond with the evidence requested). --Marty Goldberg 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent). NotSarenne has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Sarenne. Based off the User name and a recent email I received, I see very little to prove there is not a relationship. NotSarenne's first edit [21] is very suspicious, right off the start saying "I'm not a sock". This shot up a red flag to me. This incident is pretty much resolved, but Fnagaton, please avoid using socks in the future. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I can easily commit to not "using socks" in the future since I have not before now, but ho hum water under the bridge and all that. I am glad another sock of Sarenne has been blocked though. Thank you for taking the time to look through the case from Marty, he is much better at the long hard slogging through references than I am and I think it was his diligence that helped resolve this. Fnagaton 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. The other suspected sock ( User:HyperColony ) in the NotSarenne sock puppet report was using Tor according to the check user. With NotSarenne blocked there is a good chance that user will become active again so it may be wise to keep an eye on it. Fnagaton 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Resolved

The page hasn't been marked as so yet, but nothing has happened at the page for over 20minutes. Thought I would bring it to the administrators attention before it came to be a really big problem. Rgoodermote(Respond Here) 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked three blatant bot-reported vios. There's only one left, but with no consensus to block.Dppowell 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic anon IP stalking 2 users

An anon editor, using a dynamic IP addy has been stalking both User:Benjiboi and myself, apparently in retaliation for edits made to Hot House Entertainment. The article has been a source of contention, and it and two others had to be semi protected. That is when the harassment on our talk pages and the stalking began. Some diffs: [22] [23] [24] This is the Hot House history: [25] A compariosn of the addresses seems to bear out that the anon stalking IP is related to the one who was editing the article. I would appreciate it if some admin could intervene, or provide some suggestions as to how to deal with this. Jeffpw 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Paterson, New Jersey. That's all the help I can give because dynamic IPs have a tendency to switch. It's a Verizon IP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon apparently had issue with Sister Roma's perceived anti-Catholicism stemming from her inclusion on the Folsom Street Fair poster artwork (parody of the The Last Supper). Roma works at Hot House Entertainment (hence the connection) and Sister Boom-Boom was also semi-protected for repeated vandalism. User_talk:72.68.30.122 (also 72.68.127.29, 72.76.9.19, 72.68.31.200, 72.76.79.137, 72.68.121.41, 71.127.228.185, 71.127.229.250) mass deleted the vast majority of stub Sister Roma then tagged the article as non-notable as seen here. The same was done to Hot House Entertainment porn company where Sister Roma works (seen here and to a lesser degree Sister Boom-Boom. This anon IP is either a quick learner or, more likely a sock as they seem to have advanced wikipedia editing skills and then left me this note ending the first round of vandalism. Benjiboi 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3 weeks of semi-protection for both your user pages and user talk pages sounds right. Semi-protection of user talk pages is something some admins shy from, but it's really the only recourse we have to protect good editors from ongoing harassment from anon vandals. Three weeks is about how long it takes for truly dedicated trolls to lose interest. Some admin should step up to the plate and do it. Go to RFPP if this thread gets archived. 09:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.230.139 (talk)

Contacting the ISP would be a good idea. There may be people at LTA who are willing to help with that. 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.230.139 (talk)

Repeated vandalism with WP:BLP issues to Todd Stroger article

Resolved

 – semiprotected. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP 99.166.117.86 (talk · contribs) keeps reinserting a preposterous nickname with fairly serious WP:BLP implications into the Todd Stroger article. When I ran a whois on the IP, it came back as a privately owned block, licensed from AT&T (I guess?). This is the edit this person keeps inserting [26]. Last one was Nov. 1. I've placed a warning on the talk page. Should probably keep an eye on this person. I'm also wondering, is there an ISP template for a situation like this? A geektools whois came back to a person's name, with an sbcglobal address indicated for abuse issues. Did I put the right ISP template on the talk page? Nobody of consequence 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I semiprotected, and I commend to you WP:RFPP in case of future occurrences. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

This page is not to be left move unprotected

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Admins should not ever set any protection expiry time for this page, even if they either change their protection level to [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] or [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. 75.36.255.227 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad there's no way to protect from edits for a finite amount of time, but move protect indefinitely. Feature request? feature creep? –Crazy tales talk/desk 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The page can be only manually removed semi-protection by admins after having been protected for a certain amount of time, but should indefinitely remain move protected. Setting an expiry will result the move protection to be automatically removed from the page, once the expiration has ended. 75.36.255.227 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to hardcode this warning into the page that admins see when changing the protection levels? This sounds like the sort of thing that could easily be forgotten. Carcharoth 12:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

See User talk:Jéské Couriano#Fred Thompson (at the bottom of the page). Could someone give me some guidance? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've warned User:Turtlescrubber for civility. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AS 001

I ask that someone look over the contributions for User:AS 001, who does not seem to be here for the purpooses of building the encyclopedia. All of the edits from this account have been either criticizing admins or opposing the nominations for adminbots. Community input requested. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, I think Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) may be the person to ask. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), right? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I screwed that up twice. Viridae^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And based on this diff, he would appear to be a sock of banned user Bill Ayer (talk · contribs). He was also created 47 minutes after Bill's indef block. Someguy1221 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I wondered why there was a banned and sock template. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bill Ayer claimed to be airline CEO Bill Ayer, and as I recall, was told he could create a new account as a privacy issue. However, he created two accounts AS 001 (talk · contribs) and AS 002 (talk · contribs). The first was to avoid a block the the Bill Ayer account, and the second to avoid a block on the AS 001 account. The contribs do make him look a bit sockish. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Allowal to be part of Caisson discussion

For the past two weeks a debate has been occurring on the Caisson (Asian architecture) article. On one side is PalaceGuard008, and on the other, Mattisse. I have attempted to provide solutions for the argument and that is visible on the article's Discussion page. Unfortunately, I have run into conflicts with the admin LessHeardVanU who seems to believe that I am harassing Mattisse, and he subsequently issued a warning and a recent block that were both wrongfully conceived. Perhaps I should have contested the warning before, and this would not have occurred, but my words fell on deaf ears so I did not press it further. Either way, I would like it to be known and stated that I have not committed any wrongful acts on the Caisson page and have only tried to help as a peer and concerned Wikipedian. In the future, I may ask for the warning and block issued by LessHeardVanU be revoked, but for now I wish for a declaration that I can go back to contributing to the Caisson article. - Cyborg Ninja 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Review of Mattisse's Talk page

Mattisse was recently blocked by the admin LessHeardVanU after LessHeardVanU viewed the posting to AN/I I made several days ago about Mattisse's treatment of another user. The block was for 24 hours. However, after viewing the user's Talk page [27], I believe the block should extend further and a review of the user's sockpuppets should be made if technically feasible. Much of the improper conduct is directed toward LessHeardVanU, but extends to other users as well, including myself. Though LessHeardVanU is willing to look the other way, at the same time he is ignoring years of misconduct by this user and her recent insults to other users. The administration should not turn a blind eye to this kind of conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Included is a threat to user Blueboar, who was originally the victim of the subject of the previously stated AN/I posting. [28]

Blueboar, you have no credibility with me. I will cause you endless misery if I am unblocked. Please make sure I am not. You are a hypocrite and I have no respect for you sanctimonious two-faced attitude. I did everything I could to get through to you to no avail. Pleaded with you for help.

Now I am saying, you better make sure I am blocked forever. I will never contribute anything constructive to Wikipedia again. It is in your interest to have me blocked forever. Remember that. So do it. --Mattisse 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyborg Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) neglects to mention that I also blocked their account for violating a warning I gave in regard to harassing User:Mattisse by attempting to create disruption on articles and in user talkpages previously edited or interacted with by Mattisse. Cyborg Ninja also left this message on my talkpage regarding said block - I'm a little confused that I am now being used as an example by Cyborg Ninja in a complaint regarding Mattisse... My review and block of Mattisse, and Mattisse's subsequent posts in relation to it with me and other editors, is nothing to do with Cyborg Ninja; but serves as an indication of the level of obsession this editor seems to demonstrate with the other. Whatever problems I may think that Mattisse has with their interaction with some other contributors I recognise that they produce a lot of good quality content for the encyclopedia. I feel that Cyborg Ninja should be encouraged to turn their attention to help building the encyclopedia and to drop the matter of the edits of Mattisse. LessHeard vanU 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The specific edit in question is this one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment was made in anger, after I blocked, and was later rescinded and removed with the help of another admin. LessHeard vanU 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be me I think, the two most inflammatory things are gone now... I'm not sure how this is all going to play out but I'd advise just waiting and seeing, for a while at least. Cyborg Ninja, if Less is cool, you should be too. Let's just everyone see what happens for now, eh? ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that an administrator such as you, LessHeard, would think that my actions are not in good faith. Anyone, frankly, can see how offensive and disturbing Mattisse's behavior is, and your attempt to claim that I'm somehow "obsessed" is not the type of behavior appropriate of an administrator. You yourself saw that my AN/I posting from several days ago about Mattisse's attack on Blueboar was legitimate, and yet you have never thanked me for notifying the administration it. Instead, you continued with your subsequent block of me to tell me to "use appropriate avenues." Apparently asking for an informal arbitration for Caisson (Asian architecture), and then a formal one, and then creating an AN/I posting after days of attempting to forgive, is evidence of "stalking" and "harassment" to you. You see, I believe that the stronger person ignores insults from others to them, but will not stand idly by when others are insulted and harassed. That is a quality of a strong, personable human being. Not an "obsessed" one. By the way, as for me leaving out how I was blocked, look DIRECTLY ABOVE YOU. - Cyborg Ninja 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this issue is not resolved until other administrators become involved due to your conflict of interest, which you yourself cited in a previous discussion about a week ago. Even if there were none, your judgment seems severely flawed here and I plead to other administrators to review Mattisse's history, including 18 known sockpuppet accounts (and more), multiple conflicts with other users besides myself, and current use of threats and vile insults before considering this matter resolved. Once again, the type of behavior visible on the user's talk page is not at all indicative of a worthy Wikipedian contributor, and bare in mind the majority of the user's edits consist of adding citation tags, up to the amount of 300+ a day. - Cyborg Ninja 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the {{resolved}} tag as neither party appears blocked - nor needs to be. This matter is still open. LessHeard vanU 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that Mattisse could definitely improve the approach taken but what I am seeing is that some attempt to improve things is already underway. Perhaps I'm too optimistic but I'm not sure that Cyborg Ninja's approach is the best way to go, I'd let this abide a while, as I said. Citation tags, if well placed, are helpful, they advance the improvement of the encyclopedia. We all do what we can to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Perspicacite/Frank Gaffney

I have tried to engage User:Perspicacite on a friendly and professional level (see [29]) and asked why he continues to categorize Frank Gaffney as a Jewish-American politician, when Mr. Gaffney is neither to the best of my knowledge, and also why he deletes other valid categories. Perspicacite blanked all my comments and questions from his talkpage, refused to respond on my talk page, reinserted the category without explanation and accused me in an edit summary of spamming his talk page (see [30]). This person is behaving entirely withough good faith and appears to be extremely arrogant. Please check this matter out. Thanks. Maplewooddrive 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaffney worked in the Reagan administration as Assistant Secretary of Defense. Gaffney is Jewish. Therefore, surprise surprise, he is categorized as a Jewish-American politician. Maplewooddrive felt it was necessary to post a lengthy, incoherent complaint[31] about my reversion of another user's vandalism. His only edit to the Frank Gaffney article was this.[32] His... contribution only made the article worse. Perspicacite 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which of the sources cited by the article supports your claim as to the subject's religion? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Where is the evidence that Gaffney, against all probability, is Jewish. Perspicacite refuses to provide a reference for this, meaning possible original research or private knowledge, at best. Also, a politician is someone who is elected to public office, no?

What is more, Perspicacite has misrepresented my edits, which were meant to improve the article, including the new categories which he himself acknowledged in one of his edit summaries. I really hate to sound shrill, but Perspicacite refusal to respond on my talk page and discuss the matter one on one left me no choice but to come to WP:AN/I. Maplewooddrive 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maplewooddrive, you were reverted because your edits are poor. A user complaining about other editors engaging in "bad-faith" reversions would be wise not to call the user "arrogant" in the complaint. Some would interpret that as a personal attack. Stop wasting my time. Perspicacite 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking administrators to do, Maplewooddrive. Perhaps you would find some part of dispute resolution more appropriate to your needs? And a pinch of WP:COOL might help you. That said, I'd like to suggest to Perspicacite that you show a little more civility to people trying to work on the same articles as you. All our articles should be sourced, so if somebody asks you for the source to an edit, you should be prepared to give him one. To my eye, your behavior and comments to Maplewooddrive look very BITE-y. William Pietri 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be that Perspicacite should be asked to enter into a dialogue with fellow editors in a more collegiate manner rather than just expunging (valid) comments and questions he has no legitimate answer to.

(There have been similar problems with Perspicacite at the Tokelau article with US versions of English and dates being introduced to an article on a Commonwealth country and the deletion without consensus of a relevant image and conversion templates.) Alice.S 04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would concur here. The diff shown displays Perspicacite reverting back to a version of the article containing improper grammar and misspellings, which is extremely disruptive. Other diffs show Perspicacite being uncivil and ignoring good faith attempts to reach out by other editors. K. Scott Bailey 05:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would seem like a step forward to me. Although it can sometimes be reasonable to delete sections that one is done with, I think that works best with notes from good pals who expect no reply. To strangers or those trying to have a conversation, it can seem hostile, which I'm sure is an impression Perspicacite wouldn't want to give. Would you be willing to give it a try, Perspicacite? If it helps, I'll add my request to the others here. Thanks, William Pietri 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your condescension does not contribute to dispute resolution. Alice.S followed me onto the Frank Gaffney page after I cleanedup the mess on Tokelau. If you really want to push this matter forward I have no problem finding diffs to get both of you, Alice.S and Maplewooddrive, blocked. An RFCU is probably in order here. My patience is finite. Perspicacite 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Making threats in response to polite requests to discuss issues civilly does not put you in a particularly good light, Perspicacite. When I'm nearing the end of my patience, I turn off the computer and take a long stroll. Perhaps you might benefit from that, too. William Pietri 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse that advice, Perspicacite. Editing here can be stressful, but only if you let it. A nice cup of tea, or whatever you do to relax. I see a minor content dispute (which seems to have been resolved; the minor errors of formatting your edit introduced have been fixed), and a bit of annoyance between people who wish to improve the encyclopedia. Happens all the time. -- John 06:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

John, William Pietri, K. Scott Bailey, et al - All I want to know is where is the proof Gaffney is Jewish. Perspicacite cannot and/or will not provide such proof. The matter is not resolved. The only editor to even state that Gaffney is Jewish is an anonymous IP who left a comment on Gaffney's talkpage ("the guy is Jewish").

I don't get it why Perspicacite is permitted to make unconfirmable edits, threaten others (I have no problem finding diffs to get both of you, Alice.S and Maplewooddrive, blocked. An RFCU is probably in order here. My patience is finite.) and otherwise behave badly towards other editors. An RFCU is fine by me, Alice and I are not the same person, but evidently we both find Perspicacite behaviour intolerable and meriting a 48 hour or so block just for his/her incivility alone. What happens when I delete this contested category again?? Maplewooddrive 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I might not be the best person to comment here, seeing that my name is currently on ANI with various people complaining about my edits, however I have encountered Perspicacite before, and he is most certainly not civil with regards to edits, his edit summaries and talk comments are normally rude and/or dismissive. This of course was just in my brief encounter with him, he might be an angel at other times, I really don't know.Sennen goroshi 16:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of Perspicacite's civility, which occasionally leaves something to be desired, the Jewish-American category certainly should not be re-inserted into the article without reliable sourcing, and I have placed a note on their talk page noting such. ELIMINATORJR 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'd add that if going forward any participant in this issue feels that things have not been resolved, opening a request for comment is probably a better step than coming back here, as blocks are preventative, not punitive, and I don't see them as having a place in minor editorial disputes. But I'd encourage everybody to try to make a fresh start. None of us are perfect, and it's generally more productive to focus on improving one own's actions than trying to enumerate all the ways someone else is imperfect. William Pietri 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour

I am being targeted with uncivil behaviour from Cyrus XIII.

I added templates to the Dir en grey article, as I feel the article needs minor adjustments to meet the Wikipedia guidelines.

Cyrus XIII has continued to vandalise my posts, which were meant to improve the article. The Dir en grey article has original research, misinterpreted citations, and is becoming a news release for the topic. The lead paragraph in-particular has a misinterpreted citation.

I requested the use of the talk page, and had to give a friendly warning to Cyrus XIII on his/her talk page, after they called my contribution "crap" and made ill-considered accusations.

I warned this user again, because they have since repeatedly made ill-considered accusations; by modifying my signature to make it seem like I am a different editor. I have asked Cyrus XIII to stop their uncivil behaviour, and directed them to various Wikipedia policies. This user has since vandalised the same article, and seems to want to cause an edit war.

I request that an admin please intervene, by imposing minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary, and to investigate my claims to improve the Dir en grey article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Information can be found at [Dir en grey talk page] at the heading Unencyclopedic content. There are also warnings on Cyrus XIII's talk page. Update: This sentence in-particular "and are among the Japanese musicians who have enjoyed notable success in Europe and North America." in the lead paragraph; is unnecessary, and its references say nothing of the sort. 122.49.135.245 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, 122.49.135.245. From the Dir en grey talk page, it seems that Cyrus XIII believes you are a user repeatedly blocked for three-revert rule violations and ban evasion through editing anonymously. What truth is there to that belief? Thanks, William Pietri 04:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A quick review of the article in question and the edit patterns of the involved parties shows that this anonymous editor is most likely an IP sock of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs · logs · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri, occasionally when I visit the Wikipedia, there will be a new message waiting. Mostly it is about a dispute I have no knowledge about, and in rare cases, I am even blocked from editing. In fact, I remember the first time I went to edit an article, my IP was blocked. That was early last year. Cyrus XIII was politely informed about making ill-considered accusations, as I don't appreciate being called a fraud, nor do I like my contributions being disregarded as "crap"

I also don't appreciate your post Kralizec, as you're making assumptions and assuming bad faith. 122.49.135.245 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None of my contributions were disruptive, and I tried to improve the article to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, and for people visiting the article. 122.49.135.245 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So just to be sure, you are not Jun kaneko? If you are not, then you should go create an account, so that you are not mistaken for other people. Once you've done that, go to the talk page of the article in question and start fresh by politely suggesting one modest change. Once your fellow editors have reached consensus, then feel free to make the change. I'm sure it's upsetting to be mistaken for someone else, but Cyrus XIII has clearly had to deal with someone who has been very disruptive, so you should treat his very reasonable misunderstanding with sympathy, not with requests for punishment. Thanks, William Pietri 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually did not request for punishment, I requested that an admin look into my claims about the article, and carry out a "minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary"

The section "2007: The Marrow of a Bone" is becoming like a new release section.

The section "Style and subject matter" contains much original research.

The lead paragraph also contains original research, as well as sentences that are Unencyclopedic, as well as misinterpreted citations.

After recent disruptions, I feel the aid of an admin is the only way to correct the article if needed.

Mostly I only view the Wikipedia, I rarely edit articles. Mostly only to make it more encyclopedic, but I guess creating an account is a solid idea. 122.49.135.245 05:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence strongly suports that this is Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), based on historical editing patterns in the various articles involved, and on the his reactions today to the reverting by two editors of the inappropriate templates he added to two articles. His post here at AN/I shows that he is learning how to WP:GAME the system, however, his multiple reverts on Dir en gray and Visual kei today along with his typical harrassing warnings on my page and Cyrus' page today, show his identity.

In addition to the IP listed above, he edited today using: 122.49.156.30 (talk · contribs). This can be seen in the Visual kei revision history for today, here and here.

He also posted today on my talk page, accusing me of Wikistalking for reverting his changes, and he also placed warnings on Cyrus' talk page. These are actions he has done in the past, such as a month ago when he posted approximately 15 messages on my talk page from two of the IPs listed below, after I requested semi-protection of the page he was IP-vandalizing.

With at least two of the other IP's he's used, he signed his user name Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), in IP edits: here and here.

He has edited using these IPs in addition to the two listed above:

• 122.49.157.149 (talk · contribs)
• 172.203.23.174 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.173.58 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.137.70 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.253.69 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.249.86 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.167.206 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs)

Also please note:

• prior 3RR report resulting in blocks for user and IP

• prior block-evasion report an AN/I

• prior request for semi-protection due to IP edit warring

I hope that provides enough information. I understand the need to assume that an IP user from a dynamic IP range may not be the same as another person who has used that IP. But in this case, it would be a huge coincidence and very unlikely, that an unrelated user would immediately take up the same patterns of harassment and edit warring previously shown by another editor known to use the same IP range. This user has caused a lot of hassles for several articles and at least three editors, over a period of months. --Parsifal _Hello 05:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the type of harassment I am committing? My warnings were fare considering your actions, and the refusal to use the talk page.

How trying to improve the article, to be encyclopedic, and remove original research; disruptive?

It seems you have an issue with someone else, and are reverting my posts to be vendictiv, and/or protecting information on the page for personal reasons. 122.49.135.245 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain, if you have previously been banned from Wikipedia (which is different from blocking), then you can't edit at all, regardless of how good your edits are. JuJube 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I mostly just view articles. If there is something wrong with it, I try to fix it. (such as removing original research)

I have never even been blocked, and I'm quite disappointed in regards to how this simple matter is being handled. After reading the Dir en grey article, there were problems with it. That article linked me to the Visual Kei. Reading that article I found it became very repetitive, so I placed a template up informing people about that.

Parsifal removed the templates from the Dir en grey article, citing "vandalism" and then removed the templates from Visual Kei article, citing "vandalism"

How is that vandalism? read the Visual Kei article, it repeats itself, and the problems in the Dir en grey are evident. It seems these users have other motives for their edits. 122.49.135.245 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to read the Visual Kei article, and notice how repetitive it is. Then check the history log, and notice Cyrus XIII's entry. Update: afterwards, please read the history log for Dir en grey and take note of their entry's. These two users seem to be quite disruptive with their edits, and appear to have other motives for their edits (as the templates are clearly evident to the articles) 122.49.135.245 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am not going to argue with this user. He filed his report here about Cyrus, not about me. He didn't even mention my name in his report. After I provided evidence to help administrators here decide how to handle the situation, now he's complaining about me - what a surprise. And for someone who claims not to edit Wikipedia much, he knows a lot of abbreviations and policy terms, and how to find this noticeboard. I didn't even use the word "vandalism" in my edit summaries, I used the abbreviation: "RVV (IP - SPA))", because I recognized his behavior from the prior incidents. As far as I can see in the revision history, Cyrus also didn't use the word "vandalism" either. So, how did this inexperienced IP user know the meaning of RVV?

Suggestion. It seems to me, semi-protection of Dir en gray and Visual kei for a month or so would be helpful. --Parsifal _Hello 08:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I should probably comment here as well: First of all, I have to agree with Kralizec! and Parsifal, that the editing patterns and IP ranges (122.49.*.*/219.90.*.*) match way too closely, to leave any genuine scope for a "wrong guy" scenario. That being said, it is true that I have dismissed the latest edits by Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) to the Dir en grey article and talk page as "crap", owing to the fact, that when it comes to this character, my ability to assume good faith has long since fallen through.

It has been about three months now, since this alleged 40-year-old with "almost 20 years experience within the Japanese music scene" started to edit war his way through several articles (the ones I am aware of being Skin (Japanese band), Visual kei and more recently Free-Will and Dir en grey). His conduct is characterized by a general disregard of consensus, a highly rude and dismissive attitude of anyone who disagrees with his opinions and a penchant for making threats of "reporting" someone or wrongfully claiming to have done so (and by now, as we can all see here, actually doing it). He has violated the 3RR at least six times and was subsequently blocked on several occasions, included aforementioned case of block evasion, were he acknowledged his identity while operating under an IP.

Below, you will find a more extensive IP list, that was compiled by browsing through the histories of several of the aforementioned articles and some related talk pages. It is divided into IPs used before the Jun kaneko account was registered, as well as those used after it was abandoned and contains additional links to illustrate the events I have outlined in the previous paragraph.

It might not be elegant to state the following in a venue where my own conduct was called into question in the first place, but as Parsifal pointed out, Jun kaneko already knows a great deal about our ways, policies and procedures and still shows virtually no inclination to contribute to this project in a respectful and collaborative fashion. Hence I'm going to be as straightforward here as I can and suggest to block the guy for good, before he gets too proficient at gaming the system and evolves from a blunt, edit warring nuisance into a seasoned, opinion-pushing WikiLawyer.

- Cyrus XIII 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please edit my edit summaries on 3 pages

I accidentally put the wrong edit summary on my edits of these pages:

Grafting
Leeds Grammar School
Reception

I thought I had "Fixed link(s) to disambig page ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|you can help!]])" in my paste buffer, but instead I had an URL. Can you please fix them that so that the URL is no longer in the edit summaries? Thanks. Auntof6 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You could just make a null edit (like adding a space) with a clarifying edit summary if this really bothers you, as admins can't change edit summaries anyway. And although I wouldn't be surprised if oversights could modify them, they generally reserve their superpowers for removing personal identification or contact information. Someguy1221 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing as Someguy1221. I don't think the edit summary leaks more information than a nosy person could guess, so I personally wouldn't worry about it. But if you're concerned, I think Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the place to start. Regardless, thanks for being diligent about edit summaries. Thanks, William Pietri 05:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw this in some obscure policy somewhere, and what you should do is make a really trivial edit with an edit summary explaining your previous edit. Honestly, if it's a non-controversial edit I don't think anybody would care, and if it is you should be discussing it on the talk page. Cheers, east.718 at 05:31, 11/4/2007

I spoke too soon. Actually, if it's a mild privacy concern, any admin can delete the whole page and restore all but the edits in question. That would require you to re-do your edit, and admins would still be able to see the bad edit summary if they looked, though. Either way, just let us know. Thanks, William Pietri 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:199.125.109.56

I attempted an Rfc recently to establish some consensus on the solar energy page regarding picture choices. The results of the Rfc were relatively clear but this IP user has disregarded the results and appears to be willfully avoiding the consensus process. This sort of general disruptive behavior has been going on for several months but as a new user I’ve been slow to gain some of the conflict resolution tools required in these situations. I'm posting here after attempting the Rfc process and then asking for futher help on the Editor assistance/Requests page. Thanks for any help or advice. Mrshaba 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me. She reverted my first edit to the page on Oct. 29[59]. She then followed me onto the Frank Gaffney article where she attempted to start a fight with me[60] and again here.[61] She left this highly uncivil comment on my talkpage.[62] She appears to have violated WP:OWN, WP:STALK, and WP:CIVIL. I'm not looking for a block. I'm looking for someone to notify her she's in the wrong. Perspicacite 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see that as uncivil at all, let alone "highly uncivil". At first glance, she's correct about the MOS issues; if you disagree you should discuss it with her either on the article talk page (which you haven't touched yet) or on your talk page (where she came to sort things out). As to the rest, turning up on one page does not a stalking make, and IMHO, it's a weak start to a claim of sockpuppeting. Note also that right at the top of the page it says that "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department". As it says in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." You should try that first, and then proceed to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Thanks, William Pietri 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtually none of what you just said is correct. I did post on the talkpage. I already dealt with the MoS issue. She did not come to my talkpage to "sort things out." Nowhere in the above post do I accuse her of sockpuppeting. Did you not read what I posted? I also already posted on her talkpage, contrary to your statement. Thanks for your... input but I'd like another opinion. Perspicacite 06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take those in order. You posted on the talk page of Tokelau only after making this complaint, and after my comment above. I'm glad you've dealt with the MoS issue; that suggests we are in agreement: the main thrust of her comment on your talk page was correct. From her behavior, I believe she did contact you on your talk page with the intention of resolving the dispute, but only she can really know that. Earlier on this page, you suggest an RFCU may be in order, which seemed to imply a sock-puppet allegation. Your comment on her talk page was only ten minutes before posting this; I still had your contribution history open from the discussion earlier on this page. Sorry for the error. However, that comment was only to menace her with coming here, so it's hardly the discussion of the disputed edits I was suggesting. As to the other opinion, I'm sure you'll get it, as I'm off to bed. And you're welcome for my... input. Any time. William Pietri 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done except that once again, you're wrong. The MoS issue was taken care of before any of your posts on this issue. The RFCU was clearly directed at the other user, not her, and nowhere is an RFCU mentioned in this post. Again, thanks for the 'input'. Perspicacite 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Perspicacite. I never suggested that the MOS issue wasn't taken care of, and I'm glad you did the right thing. Next time, feel free to mention that right out rather than hoping people find it in your edits. I brought it up because you were asking for her to be told that she was wrong, when it seemed like the main thrust of her concern was in fact right. That would also make it a concern worth answering politely, and not deleting. To my eyes, the RFCU comment was directed at both of them, coming, as it did, directly after a threat to get the two of them blocked. Sorry if I got that wrong. That it was not in this post is immaterial; admins are supposed to look at the whole issue when getting involved in something.

That out of the way, I'll remind you again that the way to get editorial disputes resolved is through dispute resolution. This is mainly a place to handle urgent issues requiring admin powers, not small issues of content and behavior. That road begins with civil discussion, something I'd encourage you to try more of. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then feel free to open an [[WP:RFC|RfC]. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On a point of information: (I am very new to WP so please chastise me if this is out of order). Is it permissible for Perspicacite to type uncorrected untruths?

He typed: "After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me."

As far as I know I have not edited any other article page whatever that Perspicacite has also edited! (I did raise a question as to correct categorisation at the Discussion page of our article on Frank Gaffney but this was not particularly directed at Perspicacite until he chose to draw attention to himself there by personalising things again).

Am I entitled to insist that these untruths are withdrawn?

I have no wish to start any war with anyone and my peace offer has already been rejected out of hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlice.S&diff=169113629&oldid=169105522

What exactly is a "RFCU"? Alice.S 10:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. RFCU is a Request for Check User to see if one user might be a sockpuppet of another. --Kateshortforbob 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S's last statement is pretty much a blatant lie. She followed me to Frank Gaffney, here, and Economy of Australia. Since she continued to stalk after being warned she is up for a block. Perspicacite 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?!

1) I have never edited Frank Gaffney. If you wish to maintain otherwise, please provide the diff.

2) Are you really saying that I am unable to defend myself here? - it was you that rejected my peace offer. If I get e-mails from several users that you have also rubbed up the wrong way by your uncollegiate and ignorant reverts alerting me to this page, are you really saying that I should not draw editors and administrators attention to your habit of blanking questions/comments/ your page rather than entring into constructive dialogue?

3) My contributions to Economy of Australia were after your untrue statements - not before - just check the timestamps.

4) Unless someone points me to some policy I am aware of, how does it constitute harassment of you to make the corrections I did at Economy of Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Australia&diff=169128603&oldid=169092129 ? (If it was indeed yourself that perpetrated these howlers then I see no need to apologise for correcting them. This is an encyclopedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful explanation, forbob. I presume that he must really mean WP:RFC/U since not even he can be peddling that hoary old stereotype about all Asian women being dolls or puppets! Alice.S 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This above post clearly merits a 24 hour block for incivility. A longer block for stalking is also merited based on her stalking me onto the Frank Gaffney page[63][64][65], WP:AN/I,[66][67]. Perspicacite 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should probably be careful here, Perspicacite. It is YOU that is in the wrong here, not Alice. I would encourage you to file an RfC on this, and see how it goes. You'll see very quickly where you have gone wrong, and that Alice has violated no policies in her actions regarding you. K. Scott Bailey 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs)

Recently administrator Isotope23 unblocked EverybodyHatesChris with the summary "Per discussion with editor and blocking admin". EverybodyHatesChris has originally blocked on 5 June for harrassment of editors, and indef blocked on 11 June with block summary "Trolling, plain and simple". Since his indefinite block, EverybodyHatesChris has used over a dozen sockpuppets to continue his campaign of trolling, harassment, sub-par editing and other bad behavior, right up until his unblock by Isotope23.

Checkuser Jpgordon has previously confirmed the sockpuppetry, and the checkusers declined to run another check on those grounds. Still, the connection between the accounts is clear. The accounts all edit the same small subset of television articles in the same manner. Eagle 101 linked to an impressive list of overlap on the WP:RFCU case page, but that link seems to be broken at the moment.

I inquired about this unblock at Isotope's talk page, along with another user, and was told that "It happened because I spoke to the original blocking admin and the editor in question. The blocking admin had no objection, so I unblocked. The editor created multiple accounts because they were blocked; no block = no reason to edit through other accounts. Blocking is a preventative measure, not a punishment. As long as the user behaves themselves, there is no reason for them to be blocked." (diff) He suggested that I appeal to ANI with any further concerns.

This troll has been causing trouble non-stop since his original block. I am bewildered by the unblock. Why are we to condone this sort of behavior? (diff diff diff diff) It goes on an on. There's no reason to think that it won't continue. Can I get a reasonable explanation as to why this editor was unblocked to begin with, and why they shouldn't be reblocked along with the rest of their socks? Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time right now to look into this in the detail it deserves, but I have one question that will probably occur to others: how has his behavior been since the unblock? Thanks, William Pietri 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the original blocking administrator, and for the past couple of months I had no idea why people kept coming to me about EverybodyHatesChris. When I blocked him, the past 200 edits he had were complaining about LessHeard than U (or however the name is spelled), and his activity during his block may have been deplorable, but Isotope23 believes that EverbodyHatesChris can edit constructively and act with some maturity other than why I had originally blocked him and how he acted during his block. If the community thinks he should be banned, then let that be decided. In this case, Isotope23 has lifted the administrators' ban, and my block and unblock cover that I agree with him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Might it be more convenient to refer to me as LHvU, and... he did, did he? Ho hum. LessHeard vanU 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those edits while blocked are particularly concerning, and are remarkably uncivil. However if Ryulong and Isotope are prepared to put that down to frustration at being blocked, then I'll accept that, because I trust their judgment. I would think that EverybodyHatesChris will be given little leeway from now on, however. --bainer (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are not proven to be him, yet, as far as I can tell from the checkuser request. If he can act civil now that he is not actively being blocked at every turn, then let him edit. If he does act out of line, then he gets blocked, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with accepting your take on the situation, Ryulong (especially since I trust you to nail him to the wall if he steps out of line again). EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we should pay out more rope in this case, but there is always the chance, I suppose, that this user won't make the noose right away, and if people are prepared to watch him for repeats of the original problem then I guess little harm is done. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have Judge Judy on my watchlist, which EverybodyHatesChris frequently edits, and they've generally all been good, well-considered work. Looking at his history reveals similar edits to articles related to the show Everybody Hates Chris. He seems to have cleaned up his act. JuJube 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to stress that I absolutely, positively can not possibly be more sure that every one of the above listed accounts belong to the same person. I understand that the unblocking admin(s) were not aware of this when they unblocked (or at least not aware of the full extent of the problem), and I know that not every unblock warrants a full-blown investigation into socking since the block and other misbehavior. If any of you have any doubt of the fact that these socks all belong to the same editor, I ask you to comment on the request for checkuser that I filed; I was unsuccessful in convincing the checkusers to run a check, apparently on the grounds that a previous check had already been done a couple months ago, and revealed a lot of abuse before. I'm not very good at the whole checkuser thing apparently, and maybe someone can help me out there.

While I agree that EverybodyHatesChris's edits since his unblock have been constructive, he practices some serious article ownership. Mark my words, as soon as an editor attempts to correct one of his bad habits (gratuitous unfair use of fair-use images, for example), they will be reverted and subsequently harrased with EverybodyHatesChris's particular brand of immature vitriol. This editor was spouting obscenities and other nonsense at other editors just last week. ➪HiDrNick! 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser just came back  Confirmed, along with a couple of socks I had missed. Here are a few diffs from the ones I had missed: (diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff). Why should we condone this sort of behavior? ➪HiDrNick! 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I ran another check for you, the CU page has been updated. Yes, those accounts are all connected.

What some of the CUs are telling you is that you don't have to always ask for checks in every case. If the behaviour pattern is a close match, the CU is redundant, tag the suspected socks as just that and move on. If the behaviour pattern of a suspected sock is abusive, block that ID on behaviour. If this person does not straighten up and fly right, and if the pattern of behaviour continues to new IDs only then would it warrant blocking the IP or IPs where the socks originate from. That's all my view but I think it's fairly widely held... CU is not magic pixie dust, and it is to be used sparingly, when there are few or no other ways to determine what is going on. This seems pretty obvious to me (which means I don't agree with Ryulong on this one when he said he wasn't convinced it was the same underlying user).

As for the ownership and not taking criticism well issues... if you see new ownership, raise the matter with the underlying user, politely, respectfully, and in a neutral way, overlooking the past. If the user then reacts badly, let's address that at that point. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment about checkuser, for sure. I didn't need a checkuser to know that they were all the same editor, it's obvious. I just needed something to answer the people who don't take the time to look into the situation and then say "Those edits are not proven to be him, yet, as far as I can tell from the checkuser request." Some people do act like checkuser is the only answer. ➪HiDrNick! 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I was aware of the block evading accounts when I unblocked EverybodyHatesChris. I had a talk with the editor and Ryulong and after these conversations I felt that giving EverybodyHatesChris a second chance might not be a bad thing; indefinite != infinite. The block evasion accounts were not the correct way to deal with a block the editor felt was unfair, but we don't need to scarlet letter them over it. I've spoken to the editor about WP:OWN, WP:OR, and most importantly, containing their temper and staying civil, which is why they got blocked in the first place. I've made it clear that EverybodyHatesChris needs to follow policy and there won't be a third chance if they squander this one.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian

There doesn't seem to be a current discussion about this administrator as the last one seems to have been archived however a decision still has to be reached as to what to do with him. For those who haven't been following: During the Alkivar arbitration case it was noticed a new user named JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) had appeared in support of editors Alkivar (talk · contribs) and Burntsauce (talk · contribs), nearly exactly following the MO of banned vandal JB196 (talk · contribs). As such JohnEMcClure was blocked as a sock of JB196 and that seemed to be the end of it. JohnEMcClure (as is the case of most socks) posted an unblock request consisting of:

"I'm nobody's sockpuppet; is it impossible to agree with someone else? I haven't violated any actual policies. I notice Durova didn't even bother to leave me a note; I find this highly inappropriate and would like to file a complaint on behalf of any other people who've been damaged by this. If you decline, then please add a link to the welcome message telling new users that they should be careful about agreeing with anyone, or coming to their defense if they're being unjustifiably attacked."

The request was declined by AGK (talk · contribs) on that even if the account was not a sockpuppet it had been incivil and disruptive.

This is when things got weird; admin Eyrian (talk · contribs) appeared on ANI posting Block review - JohnEMcClure in which he stated that JohnEMcClure was his disruptive sockpuppet much to the confusion of everyone. During the discussion Eyrian stated "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." implying he was ready to use his admin tools to unblock his own indefblocked puppet. When called on this he stated "Indeed, I may not have been clear. The account was designed to be entirely disposable, I have no investment in it whatsoever. Its block status is immaterial." making things even more confusing considering the accounts hard attempt at being unblocked and loud proclamation it was not a sockpuppet. Soon after Eyrian disappeared deleting his userpages and some of JohnE's too.

Considering that JohnE was first considered a sockpuppet of a banned vandal, professing to not be a puppet of anyone, having an admin claim it's puppet, and still after that having some users thinking it may be someone else's sock the incident never was fully resolved to as to what to do with Eyrian even assuming he is not the puppet master.

Eyrian still possesses his admin and user status which is my main reason for posting this. Considering Eyrian's behaviour and discussion in Alkivar arbitration as to what relationship Eyrian has to Alkivar and Burntsauce, even if he has left wikipedia again, I feel that his admin status should be revoked post-haste as he implied during the block review his willingness to abuse admin tools as well as contravene and ignore policy and his account blocked for disruption (although that can wait for my current attempts to have JohnEMcClure checkusered). –– Lid^(Talk) 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've already added all relevant evidence to the Alkivar RFAR evidence page. You might join the discussion on the Workshop page if you feel that the ArbComm needs to address this, or open a new RFAR case if they say they want to consider it as a separate case. (They are the only communally approved group that can decide to remove an admin's sysop rights without a resignation by the admin.) GRBerry 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I say with the workshop is that the desysopping of Eyrian would need to be tacked on very later in the arbitration in a very very confusing circumstance. Chances are there is going to need to be a second ArbCom for Eyrian but the evidence list will pretty much only consist of what I just posted and I wanted to see if there was a uniform support for it. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My advice: Tack it on and hope for the best. I believe this issue has awareness among ArbCom already. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

During the discussion Eyrian stated "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." implying he was ready to use his admin tools to unblock his own indefblocked puppet. No, that's not what he meant - don't twist his words. User:Veesicle 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

76.2.227.93's behavior.

An anon, 76.2.227.93 reverted my talk page and the whole comments are distorted with font size: 666" by his/her childish prank. [68] The page is MY talk page and according to wiki policy, reverting other's talk page is not acceptable. The 'font size=666' has a pregnant meaning in the Western culture. I want you to take a strong attitude to him, Thanks --Appletrees 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not defending someone vandalising your talk page, mine was vandalised a few times as well. But it seems as if they changed it, then 2 minutes later removed their changes, so perhaps they saw the error of their ways - if it happens again, you might want to ask an admin to protect your talk page to prevent anon users from editing it.Sennen goroshi 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny you say like this. Now you ADMIT you were vanalizing my talk page as reverting at this time? [69][70] [71][72] yaya. You clearly did vandalism as you admit and do shadowing my almost every edits like that. And no apology from you yet but just getting your mockery. It's so funny. You're pleading for the anon. --Appletrees 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

oh come on, lets keep this constructive, I was not admitting vandalising anything, I was merely saying that an anon user vandalised my page as well.Sennen goroshi 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This situation has evolved since Appletrees posted his/her long and rambling complaints about another user. That user, Sennen goroshi, now appears to be wikistalking Appletrees. It is quite plain to see that Sennen goroshi is following Appletrees from article to article. Judging by the taunting style of edits summaries, Sennen goroshi seems to be trying to disrupt Appletrees. Also, Sennen goroshi appears to have used an Anon. IP to vandalize the user talk page of Appletrees. It is unfortunate that these two users are acting so childishly. Would an administrator please look into this.

By the way, this problem was originally a content dispute at a controversial article that has seen nationalistic battles between users who outwardly identify with Japan, Chinese, and Korea. These users are all extremely tiresome and are all a drag on the 'pedia. They insist on using this project as a nationalistic battleground and they have scared away or completely turned off a whole bunch of constructive and policy-abiding editors. As long as we continue to ignore this problem at Wikipedia and/or deal with it in a piecemeal fashion (for example, Goodfriend100 should have been indef. banned along with others involved in the dispute!!), we will have more bad press from the mainstream media (i.e. care to edit the Koguryo article, anyone?). But I digress...70.53.130.180 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This situation? this is about an anon user vandalising Appletrees' talk page, nothing more, nothing less - don't try to blow this out of proportion. Also "Sennen goroshi appears to have used an Anon. IP to vandalize the user talk page of Appletrees." what are you talking about, I do not appear to have used an anon IP. to vandalise anything - if you do a quick WHOIS on the IP that vandalised Appletree's talk page, you will see it originated from NYC - I live in Japan - I'm wondering how I managed to post from an American IP address on the same day that I was posting on my normal account, which any admin can confirm has only been used in conjunction with my Japanese IP. I know that appletrees and I have not got on well, however I have tried very hard recently to discuss this with him, and suggest that even when we don't agree, we remain civil. The accusation of using an anon IP seems a little ironic, consider the only anon IP I see at the moment is 70.53.130.180 - ie. yours. Before you try to fan the flames, and make something out of nothing, by making accusations against me, perhaps you could try to get some facts and base your comments on facts, not on your imagination.Sennen goroshi 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's quite easy to use an anonymous NYC IP whilst posting from Japan, though I have no intention on giving instruction on how. ---- WebHamster 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am now annoyed with all of the above, what started as a simple vandalism report, has turned into a 'lets bitch and whine about sennen goroshi' session. I didn't perform the aforementioned act of vandalism, I gave advice regarding how to deal with vandalism, but still people with agendas find the need to find issue with my comments. Feel free to complain about me in an article dedicated to me, or on my talk page.Sennen goroshi 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This new advent anon at least clearly points out that Sennen goroshi is stalking me (wikistalking, the new term is interesting). I'm considering adding Sennen goshi's recent disruptive behaviors as shadowing my almost every edits. [73] [74] [75] Thank you for clearing this up. I've been harassed by him. The problem already happened one months ago, not just as I posted the report and the matter is not done yet. As for the anon reverting my talk page, who know who did that until andmins looks into it. With all due respect to 70.53.130.180, I don't agree with your opinion on one point that I did childish behaviors. I feel enough of his personal insults. And the article, Gogoryeo is actually not my concern (History is not my specialty). I only encountered Good friend 100 on Liancourt Rocks. The report explains why Sennen goroshi is so obsessive at me, so I mentioned the participants in the sensitive article in the report. That's all. I think you care about the history article, but you should talk to him directly. Anyway thank you for the comment even though you're not positive for anyone in this report.

By the way, Sennen goroshi, you've never been close to a civil person just like showing this [76] [77]. Instead of apology to me, you said you're gonna take a relax and drink an Asahi beer as the report was accidently removed? Interesting. Even as the new anon unrelated to me says that you're doing disruptive behaviors on me. Sennen goroshi, you're making so many people annoyed by your abusive edits and slams like against SingoPop (I can't recall his id exactly), Good friend 100, and melonbanmoster, and Ledtim, so forth. Don't lie any more. In addition, as for the your another abusive language like 'bitch', you're representing an English teacher, so "please" do act like that. I don't understand you're supporting the vandal anyway. Do you feel sympathy for him. weird --Appletrees 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Webhampster, I am aware of people using anon proxies, however it is not something I would waste my time with, and to be honest if I was going to vandalise a talk page while using an anon proxy, I wouldn't bother changing a font size, I would plaster goatse and tubgirl all over the place.

Goodfriend, I am still trying to be civil, because as I previously stated, even when I don't agree with your opinion, I will remain civil. I don't consider the word bitch to be obscene, if I called someone a bitch, it would be a personal attack, however to saying someone is bitching about me, hardly constitutes a breach of civility.

I don't recall defending the vandal, I said that as they seemed to revert their vandalism withing 2mins, then perhaps they had reconsidered and decided against it - therefore, it is a long drawn out report is a waste of time.

I move that the IP gets blocked if it makes a habit of vandalism, and this report gets moved to the lamest ever, because at the moment, that is what it seems like me. Sennen goroshi 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My nickname is not Good friend 100, you're so funny to confuse me with somebody. Yah, the term, 'bitch is like a language used by a bitch, You implied enough that I and the other's comments are "bitching" against you and sounds still inappropriate for anyone and especially an English teacher to use that. I only can see your absurd excuses from you above comment. This report could've finished in a very simple way unless you added on this as "stalking my edits", Quite impressive, indeed. So if an indecent posts was added in my talk page, I could easily recall your name. That's good to know about you. Why don't you care about other things instead of stalking me? Your log on the tower of Babel is another evidence that you frequently visit MY PAGE and follow my every step. --Appletrees 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 2 of you need to seperate for a while. Preferably voluntarily. Stop with the revert warring, stop stalking the user contrib listings and feeling the need to answer every post. Stop slinging accusations of incivility. It takes 2 to argue, and from what I've seen, neither one is completely innocent here. Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame, I made every effort to come to a diplomatic solution/compromise, but even when I made a request for civility, and made my offer of civility, Appletrees had to find something to get offended by, and then demanded that I make an apology, offence is found in the use of the word "bitch" it's a total fucking waste of my time. I enjoy the debate, I enjoy the differences of opinion, I don't however enjoying people bitching and whining about pointless crap, especially when I have tried to make peace with them, only to have them bitch about something else and make 15 billion reports. This report is a huge waste of my time, maybe others have time on their hands, I don't, I don't enjoy wasting my time in such a pointless manner.Sennen goroshi 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made any effort to be a civil man as others point out. You can't be diplomatic at all, because you previously admit that we each other are incapable of getting along and you're acting very weird as if you were a god. Why don't you leave me alone instead of "stalking me from article to article" (quoted from the anon) and pouring out such the "insolent languages " like "fucking", "crap", "bitching"? Please care less about what I'm doing in wiki. If you do so, there will be an absolute peace. Even though I would have some different thought to Japanese editors, but "WE" have tried to discuss on the matter. Whatever they have in mind, they're acting civil unlike you. You've made me waste my precious time and get stresses. This simple report is just toward the anon reverting my page, why do you care? --17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)

User talk:TheJudge310 - violation of policy?

Is the content on this talkpage a violation of policy? I think it is, but wanted clarification, after all Wikipedia is not a webhost. Also concerning the user, should someone warn him over this post he's violated NPA. Thanks, Davnel03 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about asking him/her yourself why s/he has that page there? Perhaps s/he is using the text for an article. I always think dialogue is the best first step, and WP:AGF. Jeffpw 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, we aren't that strict about the rules if it helps improve the encyclopedia (ie. leaving it alone will keep him happy, thus making him a better contributer and encouraging im to stay). Of course, if all he ever did was edit his talkpage we'd take some kind of action--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Irpen

I would appreciate admin input on the following issue. Recently, I had something of a short conflict with an admin regarding his/her recent bout of single-rationale RfA !votes. Me and another user contacted the admin on their talk page, which led another user, Irpen, to react by removing a comment from the admin's talk[78], as well as comment there. This comment was about myself and confused me more than the afterwards removal of my message by the admin him/herself with the edit summary "rv person who knows they are unvelcome but persists trolling around my edits" (Needless to say, I don't think I was trolling. That comment was not even related to the conflict we had, it was just a regular notification like I send out on a regular basis when e.g. properly indenting someone's struck RfA comments etc. But nevermind.) In his comment, Irpen suggested bookmarking Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dorftrottel and told Mikkalai that "it seems to me that you are dealing with the "admin material" editor". Since I had (and still have) no idea what s/he might be talking about, I posted on their talk, asking for more info and providing some regarding myself. Just now, I realised that this thread has been removed with the edit summary "rm obnoxious rant". I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I would welcome any input. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What administrative action do you wish to see applied? El_C 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I was going to notify Irpen of this thread right away, hoping s/he would respond here since asking myself is apparently not an option. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for dispute resolution; we're trying to keep this board limited to incidents which require administrative attention. El_C 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not about a content dispute. As of yet, I'm not at all sure what it really is about. If "asking with some added weight" counts as an admin action, that's what I'd appreciate. I'm not much interested in any other measures yet, but that may become relevant. For now, I'm willing to ignore the highly uncivil gesture of roundly removing my question calling it an "obnoxious rant" etc. But I don't think DR is the right venue, or is it? — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen does have a history of personal attacks and incivility. Will ^(talk) 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the present incident, but no, Will, Irpen really doesn't have such a history. I appeal to you and others to click on the diffs which supposedly exemplify those "personal attacks and incivility", in the RFAR finding you link to. Just click on them. Please. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

If he didn't, the Arbitration Comittee wouldn't pass the finding of fact. If it's good enough for the AC, it's good enough for me. Will ^(talk) 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, of course, stick your head in the sand and let the arbcom do your thinking for you, Sceptre. That's good, too. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

If ArbCom pass a decision in a case, then that decision is official. I'm pretty sure Jimbo made that clear. Will ^(talk) 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Jimbo Shmimbo. You should try empirical science sometime, Sceptre, it was invented more than 300 years ago. Before then, like in the Middle Ages, if they wanted to know about something in nature, they didn't look at it, they quoted what Aristotle had said about it and declared "It's official! The Man said it!" Just like you're doing now. It's almost enough to make me run for arbcom after all. If I do, and get in, you'll promise to believe everything I say, won't you ? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

The weight attributed to ArbCom statements is well-known to largely depend on the convenience it affords for the quoting user. Remember the whole BADSITES quagmire? People received blocking warnings based on one specific ArbCom finding, quoted as if it were undisputable policy. It really depends. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is about solving conflicts between users, so it very much applies. El_C 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try there then. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a civility warning should be issued, at the very least. I have seen editors blocked for rude edit summaries in the past. However, one aspect of the initial post in this thread has me confused: Does Dorftrottel think Mikkalai is an admin? I can't see any evidence of that from his/her contribution log or user page. Jeffpw 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mikkalai is an admin: Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O#M, [79] — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dorftrottel. Well then, sorry El C, but I do see an incident here. Shouldn't admins here, who are supposed to enforce policy about incivility, uphold the standard which they enforce? Those edit summaries, and the way Dorftrottel was rebuffed, are not what I expect to see in an admin here. Jeffpw 13:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What administrative action do you wish to see applied? El_C 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, El C, I think both users should be warned about civility. Yes, I could do it myself, but this thread has shown neither is amenable to the criticism of "average" users. That's why there is a board for admin help. Jeffpw 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you would benefit from leaving these editors alone. It seems that this started when you described Mikkalai's opposes to several RfAs as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]), even though the rationale given (contribution to content) is, last time I checked, broadly considered to be an important factor in selecting admins. Mikkalai and Irpen seemed a bit snarky in their replies, but can you see how they were rubbed up the wrong way in the first place? Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a fairly significant allegation to make, especially when you make it in eight places at once without discussing your concern with the user first. --bainer (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen does have a history of removing messages he deems "unsuitable" from the talk pages of other users. I've asked him not to do that or give an explanation [88] - when he removed message from Bishonen's talk page - but instead of reply, my question was removed as "rm trolling, rudeness and nosnense". He habitually does remove messages from talk pages of the others and apparently sees nothing wrong with it. -- Sander Säde 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sander Sade, are you saying that the diff above was not removing of "trolling. rudeness and nonsense"? I welcome everyone to actually check what it actually was [89] [90]. The authors of both entries are now banned for multiple abuse. Just that gives a good clue of what their entries were. --Irpen 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpen (talk • contribs)

So, what of those was my question - trolling. rudeness or nonsense? You have still not explained why do you think you are allowed to delete discussions from talk pages other then yourself. -- Sander Säde 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That particular remark on Bishonen's talk page Irpen removed was by Digwuren, now banned, who was not only trolling, but also stalking Irpen. [91]. By the way, talking about stalking, could you explain ([92] this strange event?) Are you 100% sure that Finland does not qualify as Eastern Europe? --Paul Pieniezny 14:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren has not been stalking Irpen and you really shouldn't accuse someone stalking and trolling without any evidence - especially since the opposite seems to be true. Digwuren's message was a good faith attempt to start a dialog, I presume Irpen removed it as a constructive dialog would have been harmful to his cause to get Digwuren banned - so easier to censor and pretend nothing happened. As for your page, it was an accidental click on rollback button, I immediately reverted myself, see [93]. Sorry about that. -- Sander Säde 16:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, then. Let's see. Sander Sade, could you explain how you got to the page in Paul's userspace "[(to accidentally click the rollback button" in the first place? --Irpen 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, easily. For whatever reason I have Paul's talk on my watchlist - and there was a comment from Ezhiki about Paul's edit. As I wanted to see what the edit was, I looked at Paul's edit list - and saw that he had blanked a page about Finland. Being Finland's neighbor, I was naturally interested and went to look. I wonder what is your explanation for showing up everywhere immediately after edits by Martintg, Vecrumba and others? -- Sander Säde 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bainer: Agreed. I know I could've went more elegantly about it, which is why I completely disengaged. However, you may be interested in my rationale for tagging rather than reacting those comments here. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I--and other editors--have had the same issues with both Irpen and Mikka. Mikka blankets every RfA with opposes (I've yet to notice a support), using the same "police" rationale (or some variant thereof, now that s/he's been called on it) on every RfA. When the RfA discussion veered a bit off course, several editors tried to engage on Mikka's talk page. We had our comments summarily deleted, both by Mikka and Irpen, and were referred to as "bullies", "trolls", and "stalkers." That this was done by an admin, I think qualifies it for the AN/I. K. Scott Bailey 13:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I posted here with regard to Irpen's comment he made wrt to myself rather than Mikka's recent RfA participation which provides only the backdrop and seems to be resolved by now. Mikka has every right to provide input at RfA. (But yes, s/he should be prepared for comments regarding his/her own comments in turn and not instantly label those as wikistalking etc.) — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Follwing El_C's suggestion, I went to WP:DR and skipping the (already unsuccessfully attempted) steps 1 and 2, posted a request for editor assistance here. I'm not entirely sure that the issue is a matter that calls for dispute resolution. As I said above, I'm not even sure what the issue is, as of yet. — Dorftrottel⁠ 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a good look at Dorftrottel's links and saw that all this started when Mikka supported a candidate: [94]--Paul Pieniezny 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. S/he had apparently signed with five tildes, so I simply added Mikkalai's username and notified him/her (as I would have done in any other case, I might add). Irpen then commented to that thread, and finally Mikka removed it altogether. Then followed my unsuccessful attempt at asking Irpen about that comment of his/hers. [95],[96] — Dorftrottel⁠ 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, Paul. That's ALL it was. One vote. Mikka was canvassing all RfA's with the same "police" reasoning, assuming bad faith on the part of the candidates. Several editors attempted to engage on this issue, and were treated extremely rudely, both by Mikka and Irpen. Stop creating a strawman of the issue. K. Scott Bailey 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Who did I treat "extremely rudely" here? There were plenty of thoughtful remarks above and I don't think anything is needed from my end at this point. I wish Dorftrottel and everyone good luck in turning this web-site into an even better reference full of good and encyclopedic content. --Irpen 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would reply to my initial question what this comment of yours was all about. That's all I'd like to know, and my according posting to your talk page was certainly not an "obnoxious rant". How hard can it be to answer a simple question? — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my request for admin intervention. I would appreciate it if an admin would issue a civility warning towards Irpen regarding this repeated civility offence. Calling my good-faithed notification "obnoxious stuff" borders on a personal attack. He shows no signs whatsoever to deescalate the situation by answering my simple and justified question what his comment was about, and that does IMHO weigh against his entire behaviour. — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You, however, show repeated signs of trying to escalate the situation by going from page to page with your grievances and asking for other contributors to get whipped. There are some good advises above and you are by far better off to heed to them. --Irpen 17:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just answer my question, please. I'm just not eager to let this go unresolved. You appear to hold a big grudge against me for as yet undisclosed reasons I would like to learn about and understand for the precise purpose of improving my behaviour. So, please answer my question. What is so hard about that? — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people are Polish and wishing to see our articles reflect the glories of Poland. Some are Estonian and wish our articles to reflect the glories of Estonia. Some are Russian and want our articles to show the glories of Russia. In addition, some of these people wish us to not show the ignominies of said nations. Since these nations have tangled with each other repeatedly in the 20th century and are only now not entangled in one another's affairs, some of the "glories of Estonia" to some of the people mean "the horrors of Russia/Germany/Poland," etc. Now add to this potent mix a group of people who have always learned history reflecting excerpted or partisan accounts of the past, or dark rumors about excerpting, and you have a sure recipe for uncooperative editing in every possible respect. Then we have appeals to the audience of editors to take sides. Nothing could be a worse idea than to take sides. The "experts" are possibly tainted, the amateurs are possibly tainted, and the by-standers are blind, but the one thing that is sure, the one thing you can count on, is that anyone accusing anyone else of being impolite is hiding either the weakness of an argument or trying to pull a fast one on you. ArbCom's finding of fact on Irpen was not what it is reported, above. The diffs showing "incivility" didn't show incivility on his part. The polite people aren't virtuous for their politeness, and anyone who wants to take sides is, by virtue of ignorance, as culpable as the participants. If you want to act properly, look for neutral points of view (those that use "may have been" and "is a contentious name"), those that cite to sources that themselves generate multiple references, those that are willing to put in multiple "sides" of an event, if there is an impasse, those that do not come to AN/I to report, of all things, that a word is being uttered that should not be uttered. Geogre 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BoricuaeddieBot (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Single purpose account madly opposing all Rfas. Jeffpw 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's happened many times. He's a die-hard fan of mine :-) He's been blocked. --Agüeybaná 15:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and personal attacks by single-purpose account

I've been working on improving the Steve Dahl article for some time and have made a lot of headway. However, I keep encountering problems with a single-purpose account Chicago1919 (talk · contribs). This person has never edited anything but the Dahl article, and continually inserts hyperbole, POV, weasel words, uncited claims (or claims that are cited but misleadingly stated), and deletes perfectly legitimate cited facts. For example, these edits [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. Finally, after I've tried to be reasonable and fair, and explain that we can't use words like "shockingly" and "ill-fated" and other hyperbole in Wikipedia articles, and called attention to his insistence on inserting misleading information about "ratings dives", he made this totally absurd personal attack on me [102]. I've done nothing but try to make this article objective, while this other person has done nothing but insert POV, claims based on fuzzy math, etc. I've attempted to discuss, but I reallysuspect this is a single-purpose account, here to POV push on this one article and nothing more. Nobody of consequence 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on A Perfect Circle

An anon, 68.252.94.153, is repeatedly vandalizing A Perfect Circle. This guy continues to change "was" to "is" on that article (they're not active right now) and is fond of claiming that their singer Maynard James Keenan said A Perfect Circle is actually coming back; as far as I know, there's no confirmed reunion on any news presses, their official website or by any member of the band besides Maynard. If this edit war continues, please block him. I'm getting tired of reverting what he's doing. Alex 18:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate unreversible move with creating artificial history by user:Martintg

Martintg (talk · contribs) has moved the Estonian pirates into Estonian viking expeditions amidst the WP:RM discussion that did not seem to go his way.

To make a move irreversible, he made a three-step move:

1. he moves the page first
2. then blanks the page
3. and then restored the redirect, thus creating a redirect with an artificial history, a dirty trick known as AndriyK's trick by a user who invented it.

I hereby request the deletion of the redirect with the artificial history so that the article could be moved back and the proper discussion is allowed to ensue. Such action is specifically prescribed by ArbCom in cases like this.

In addition, please warn Martintg (talk · contribs) in no unclear terms to stop such repeated disruption. --Irpen 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)