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

User Viridae violating WP:CANVASS

It would appear that Viridae is violating Wikipedia's policies on canvassing to influence the outcome of a deletion review. See the edits here and here. Bongout (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really canvassing, he's just notifying 2 people that will likely want to comment. John Reaves 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He solicited the opinion of someone he knew would be in agreement with him: "...because you are the person most likely to get the deletion reason, something that sails far above the heads of many others." Further action needs to be taken against Viridae for his highly inappropriate unilateral conduct because there was ongoing discussion, and he chose to dismiss all of it of his own accord. RTFA (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He's cherry-picking people he knows will likely want to comment in favour of his position, something that is made very clear by those edits. Bongout (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be entirely appropriate, but it certainly doesn't require sanctions. John Reaves 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a good interpretation of Canvas and Durova and Doc glasgow's views are indeed to be hoped for in such a DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 18 March 2008 (

This may be the case, but the guideline clearly states Always keep the message neutral and Viridae's message to Doc glasgow clearly violated this. It also states Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view and Durova has very well known views on BLPs. Bongout (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Contacting two users isn't canvassing, and is perfectly appropriate. It's especially appropriate for an issue such as this, where there is certain to be a prolonged discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh pull the other one. Durova had already discussed the article in question and possible deletions of it. Doc is the most clued in person on the project BLP wise, even if I don't always agree with him and is likely to want to be involved in an issue such as this. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)::I agree with Squeakbox, CBM and John Reaves. Carefully reading WP:CANVASS reveals that there are only very slim arguments that could be made for a violation by Viridae. The scale was definitely limited. Votestacking, per WP:CANVASS, involves mass talk messages - these were two individually worded messages (one was simply "Heads up, D"). One could make an argument that the first one was not neutral - although no effort was made to TELL Doc to vote one way or the other. Was he campaigning? Well, again, the policy paints a gray area on this one - you have to take scale into account. Here, it was only two people. Was this action completely appropriate? Possibly not. Are there any warranted sanctions (or really, any warranted actions at all)? Not in my opinion. Although that last addition by Viridae wasn't exactly mature. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc is often involved in deletion reviews and it appears that Durova was involved with this article previously. So, not canvassing. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is canvassing because the message was clearly not worded neutrally and it was an obvious attempt to sway consensus. Bongout (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one agrees with you, nothing is going to happen, so just drop it. John Reaves 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are well-respected people who agree with me, both in this section and in the deletion review. Bongout (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

At the present, the only person in this section who has agreed with you is RTFA, a sockpuppet. If Viridae's talk page messages violated WP:CANVASS, the problem is with the canvassing document rather than with the actions. In particular, there is no reason that every talk page message has to be neutrally phrased. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my contention that every talk page message need be worded neutrally. Also, while RTFA is a sockpuppet, as explained here, this they are a well-established user in good standing merely attempting to separate edits on subjects. This isn't a violation of policy, of trust, or of anything else.Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even every message that tells someone else you want them to support you in an AFD or DRV. Your responses here seem to alternate between wikilawyering over the wording of CANVASS and wikilawyering over the manner in which others respond to you. I think I'll take John's advice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If WP:CANVASS were to prevent wise folks like Durova or DocG from commenting anywhere, I'd say there was a bit of a problem. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that they be prevented from commenting. ;-) Bongout (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec. *2) ... okay... so what are you suggesting? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)

That Viridae be prevented from consensus canvassing. Bongout (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would mean that you are opposed to Durova and DocG having been contacted, (as that is canvassing, according to you) correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it just me, or do several folks consider BLP to override all else? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because it does, IMO. It's our most important content policy, because it takes all the other content policies we have and distills them down for a single issue where it is vitally important that we not screw up: the lives and reputations of living people. FCYTravis (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When used correctly, it should. John Reaves 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that both Doc G and Durova's input generally substantially improves the quality of discussion in any BLP matter. FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which anyone would think who is generally in favor of deletion. The bottom line is that anyone paying attention to BLP-penumbra issues at all knows exactly how Doc would respond and know how Durova would likely respond as well. At best, this Viridae should have ealized that this looked bad. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is asinine. I move that Bongout be censured for violation of WP:AGF. Jtrainor (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's as blatantly absurd as Bongout's idea that this was canvassing. I suggest that this section's discussion be closed as it's just rehashing now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Censured? We can do that? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See, it would be a proof-by-counterexample sort of thing. We would show that Assuming Good Faith is important by failing ourselves to do it for him, and letting him know how it feels. Disputes can be kept alive for years that way, if you're dedicated enough. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And that, of course, would be a textbook example of disruption to make a point <GRIN> --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) You wouldn't believe how many people get WP:POINT wrong. Basically, if you're not grinning from ear to ear at the sheer creative audacity of it all, even while preparing to click the block button... it probably wasn't a WP:POINT violation. ;-)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but there already was a related discussion on Durova's talk page when Viridae left a message. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is kinda sorta why I left her a message. Ned You have a great skill in pointing out the obvious sometimes when other people have been entirely oblivious to it. Keep it up. Viridae^Talk 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Ned nails it. I was already considering nominating that article myself. Don Murphy falls within my standing offer for courtesy BLP nomination. Viridae followed up on the active discussion to mention he'd already taken action. I've got some concerns about his decisions today on a process level, but canvassing isn't one of those concerns. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the last AfD which I initiated. It's pretty clear that simply deleting the article is not considered acceptable by large numbers of people. Where is the on-wiki discussion prior to this deletion? Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If he called to view the discussion 2 people he knew would have a similar desired outcome for it to him, he should have also asked a couple of people he knew to be on the other side of the debate, otherwise it does risk skewing it. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That has got to be the silliest suggestion I've heard in a long, long time. I suppose patrollers should go ask random vandals to place {{hangon}} tags on speediable articles to avoid "skewing the debate"? There is a vast gulf between canvassing and notifying two people of some debate, and even hinting at conflating the two is to be, at best, completely disingenuous. — Coren ^(talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor - I'll bet it's ingenuous. (No offense, Merkinsmum - I think you're mistaken, but that doesn't at all mean stupid.) Only Merkinsmum knows for sure.

We discourage canvassing because it encourages the ideas that we are voting, and that "getting out the vote" somehow makes sense as a "strategy". It's harmful when busloads of people show up to "register a vote" because it obscures what's really going on, and it encourages complaints from people who thought they won the "vote". Alerting a person with applicable knowledge doesn't turn it into a numbers game; it helps keep the focus right where it should be: on content and policy.

If you wish to argue that Viridae "violated" some policy (how legalistic!), you'll have to explain how it was harmful, what he did. Even then, the appropirate remedy would be to fix the problem, not to censure Viridae. Remember, this isn't court. Did Viridae hurt the project? If so, how? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about by deleting an article which had survived two AfDs by a substantial margin, reportedly at the request of a banned user at a troll site, without any on-wiki discussion? I mean, they really don't come a lot more rouge than me, and even I wouldn't have deleted this one, I took it to AfD. And I was one of the ones attacked by Murphy and his goons, including having him phone my wife at home. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, that sounds like something that ought to be looked at carefully, which is why there's a DRV discussion, right? I was responding to the complaint that he "canvassed" for the DRV. If leaving notes on those two talk pages hurt the project, then I can see a cause for concern, but if someone's simply hung up on the wording of WP:CANVASS versus the spirit, then I was trying to point out that they're different things. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the banned user is the subject of the article... Viridae^Talk 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a window for administrator action here, so on what basis does this conversation continue? It was two active editors, one an admin, notified about a discussion that one was already tangentially involved in. Time to move on. Avruch ^T 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:John Reaves just inspired me to write this essay. Just FYI. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:14, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I move that Viridae be congratulated for anti-canvassing. Canvassing is attempting to get numbers on your side, regardless of the merit of arguments. Durova was contacted because Viridae felt she was "the person most likely to get (i.e. understand) the deletion reason" - in other words, based on of the arguments that she would bring to the DRV. Viridae made a request for quality, not quantity. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are supported back-channels for article subjects to discuss their articles. They can email arbcom or OTRS - Murphy knows these back channels and has been in email contact with admins and Jimbo, his last email to Jimbo was a couple of days ago. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? -- Naerii 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated. If Murphy wants to address article content he can do it via supported backchannels. He has direct email addresses for enough people, and his name is enough to ensure prompt attention given past issues. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how that is related to the previous conversation about Viridae's alleged canvessing. I feel like I missed something :( Never mind. -- Naerii 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is no harm, no foul. I disagree sharply on this issue from Viridae, but she did no more than many do on and off wiki. It's implausible that the two eds. wouldn't have seen this DRV, whether she notified them or not, and what she posted can't have actually affected the course of the discussion. DGG (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If I invite some people to a debate who have previously had the same view as me, I also invite one or two who had shown the other opinion in the past. This is a discussion which had come up before, so it would be known who would have which view. If you only invite those on one side of the fence, especially about a subject many people will watch, you do run the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASS. That's just an obvious risk as can be seen by this discussion being started. It's a matter of the perception of canvassing, regardless of whether it's intentional. I don't see what's so barking about that. But I don't know if it needed putting here, unless he has been notified on his talk page of your perception and has refused to correct it. special, random, Merkinsmum 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock User:CreepyCrawly

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

CreepyCrawly registered his account in November 2006 and made one edit. Since then, he claims he has edited anonymously. He logged in on March 15 in order to bypass semiprotection on the global warming article. He made a few edits disputing the notion that the global warming trend is agreed upon by the "overwhelming majority" of scientists, and was quickly drawn into a brief revert cycle and a talk page discussion. That same day, Raul654 blocked him indefinitely as a probable sockpuppet of the banned user and prolific sockpuppeteer User:Scibaby. Since then, he has made three unblock requests, all declined, and Raul654 has tried to rebuff arguments I've made in CreepyCrawly's defense. I have agreed to advocate for CreepyCrawly, and he has agreed to allow me to argue on his behalf. Since Raul654 did not unblock after I appealed to him, my next recourse is to this noticeboard.

Raul654 has reported that checkuser does not link CreepyCrawly to Scibaby's socks, but on the other hand, Scibaby has been using anonymous proxies. The upshot is that checkuser can't help us here. We're left with the duck test.

I've noticed differences in the writing style between CreepyCrawly and Scibaby: compare edit summaries to global warming and you will notice a difference in tone. CreepyCrawly seems familiar with some policies and guidelines, but that is understandable for someone who has been editing for more than a year, and he has written that he read talk page discussions and policy pages. The arbitration committee has ruled unequivocally that familiarity with policy as a newbie does not indicate that a new user is a sockpuppet of anybody. Remember what happened to User:!!, who was blocked for just 75 minutes? CreepyCrawly has been blocked for three days, and he's still waiting to be proven innocent.

I've assembled as much evidence as I can on my user subpage: User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly. Please read it, along with User talk:CreepyCrawly, and draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia:Assume good faith means, at a bare minimum, that we assume users are innocent until proven guilty. I believe that CreepyCrawly is innocent. If I could, I would unblock him myself. But I can't. Someone needs to step up and do the right thing.

Let me note, in passing, that I commend Raul654 for responding so aggressively to Scibaby's numerous disruptive sockpuppets. Without him, anarchy would have engulfed Wikipedia's coverage of global warming long ago. Nevertheless, if Raul654 continues to believe that CreepyCrawly is a sockpuppet, than someone else needs to come forward, undo the block, and state unequivocally that CreepyCrawly is unrelated to Scibaby.

Someone please do me a favor and let Raul654 know about this discussion. I'll be going to sleep now, and I won't see how people respond until tomorrow. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I don't find the duck test persuasive here. Is the I.P. that CreepyCrawly is agreed to have used - 70.105.244.192 - an open proxy? If not, is it geographically related to Scibaby's non-open proxy I.P.s? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he is a sock of SciBaby, but I'm convinced that he is one of a group of POV-pushing sock or meat puppets. Compare Special:Contributions/CreepyCrawly, Special:Contributions/Spamsham, Special:Contributions/Grecian_Formula, Special:Contributions/Sword_and_Shield. I also have my doubts about his story - his IP address has been stable as far as checkuser can make out, but there are only two edits by the IP address. Where is that long list of non-logged-in edits that lead to him being so familiar with Wikipedia rules and jargon? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether CreepyCrawly used the same I.P. throughout. Do we not have any record of Scibaby's non-proxy I.P.s? Also, I certainly agree that the last three of those four are socks of one another, but I don't see the similarity between them and CreepyCrawly. Also, I agree that CreepyCrawly's attitude towards all of this doesn't look promising, but unless we're pretty sure of sockpuppetry, let's give him sufficient rope for a self-hanging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it's coincidence or what, but User:Creepy_Crawler may be of interest to this discussion. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a coincidence. I don't see any relationship at all. And there was User:Kreepy_krawly, a very strange case who also was apparently unrelated. (Is there a cartoon character or something that all these folks are named after?) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No clue... just seemed possible. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do editors besides Mr. Schulz and me have opinions on whether or not this meets the duck test? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I applied the Obedium-test and it came back positive (you know, like the turing test...jk) What really does it is the excitement about getting his ip snooped. Lets not forget that checkuser cannot be used to prove innocence because of proxies, and to me, its a red flag big time. Now, creepy's familiarity with sock procedure could have come about during the claimed anon editing period, but it is very unlikely that it would have come if he was a casual editor as opposed to an editor who works on a set of articles constantly (thats how you get the drama.) At least in my experience, I did not become familiar with this sort of thing until I became more of a project worker (Nicaragua, GW.) Finally, how did he know that Raul ("your friend") was going to snoop the IP? In this thread he seems to know who the checkuser is even before anything went down. Raul did a good job on creepy's page on showing some evidence, on the mean time, I will see if I can match a diff 100% to a prior sock. Brusegadi (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do I believe Creepy Crawly's story? No. I've heard variations on the same so many times that it simply rings hollow. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

None of you have addressed the fundamental question, which is, very simply:

Is CreepyCrawly the same person as Scibaby, or acting on his behalf?

I have gone to great lengths to prove that the answer is no. Scibaby was not creating sleeper accounts to use in the global warming debate until October 2007, whereas this account was created in November 2006. At that time, Scibaby had only about four accounts, and he was using them to edit nanotechnology and a few other articles unrelated to Talk:Civilian control of the military. Scibaby's modus operandi has been, since December 2007, to create numerous sockpuppets, age them past the four-day limit when needed, and attack the global warming articles. I've documented this trend in painstaking detail. He has not used any "sleepers" from 2006, and I have no reason to believe that CreepyCrawly is the first.

I've also noted that I believe CreepyCrawly's edits to global warming are fundamentally different in style and tone than those of Scibaby's socks, even if their content is similar. I have news for you folks: there's more than one person in the educated world who disagrees with the statement that global warming is agreed upon by an "overwhelming majority" of scientists. Sharing that POV doesn't make you an automatic sockpuppet of Scibaby, even if the last 40-odd user accounts who shared that POV happened to be sockpuppets of Scibaby. I will remind you again that Scibaby socks, in addition to being recently created sleeper accounts (0 to 2 weeks between account creation and first edit, not 60+ weeks), almost universally quit and do not appeal their blocks, certainly not as strenuously as CreepyCrawly has done. For all these reasons and more, I believe that CreepyCrawly is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, or any other kind of puppet, of Scibaby. The indefinite block was made solely on the premise that CreepyCrawly was a "probable Scibaby sockpuppet." Since I have placed this premise in very severe doubt, I do not endorse the block, and I believe that any admin who reviews all the facts of this case is duty-bound to unblock in accordance with established policy.

Some of you are suggesting that CreepyCrawly must be a "meatpuppet." Let me make two points here. First, that's not the reason he was blocked, and it's an invalid rationale for maintaining the block. Second, let me tell you what a meatpuppet really is. A meatpuppet is some jerk who agrees with some other jerk who has the temerity to disagree with you. I don't wish to alarm you folks, but we've basically come to the point where no new editor is allowed to edit the global warming article with a minority viewpoint, even if that editor is acting in good faith. That reality is not Scibaby's fault. If this block stands, then that reality is our fault. There's still time to rectify the situation before we need to put up a big notice on top of global warming that warns new editors to go away, as was done to Bogdanov affair.

Let me close by quoting from Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, my local newspaper, and a staunch opponent of the current consensus on global warming:

Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? Do Newsweek and Begley really believe that everyone who dissents from the global-warming doomsaying does so in bad faith? [Emphasis added.]

Source: "Hot tempers on Global Warming" by Jeff Jacoby. The Boston Globe, August 15, 2007. Full text

I rest my case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby/Obedium is smart and adaptable. He has changed tactics several times; there's no reason to believe that he would go forever without appealing a block. All of your other assertions are demonstrably false. Most especially, editors who dispute the present scientific consensus aren't driven off en masse -- we have several who edit the articles. (They don't always get their way, but then nobody does.) Your argument boils down to "this can't be Scibaby because he's never appealed a block before." I find that most unconvincing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny that this Creepy made his account about 10 months before Scibaby was here at all, to our knowledge. Suggests strongly to me that they're unrelated. Yes we can discover new tactics from a sock puppetteer- but that's unlikely to happen retroactively. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Creepy's account was created November 19, 2006. Scibaby's first identified sockpuppet (Binkythewonderskull) was registered in March 2006, followed by MRN (March 2006), Adam Newton (April 2006). Slaphappie (July 2006), Obedium (July 2006), Scibaby (September 2006). Given that by that day, he already had 5 sockpuppet accounts, why should it be surprising that he registered a 6th? Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is lost by unblocking Creepy? This discussion has consumed about two days of heated discussion and as near as I can tell done nothing other than entrenching entrenched opinions even deeper. What horror and nightmare would come from unblocking him? What if he did immediately vandalize, or worse, offer an unpopular opinion? Wouldn't it be possible to block him again? Wouldn't it be faster simply to perform and experiment and observe the outcome rather than to argue from fixed positions about the desirability of performing the experiment? Loren.wilton (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, with justice served. I offer Shalom my sincerest thanks for championing my cause. CreepyCrawly (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media

Resolved

 – MfD closed as delete, no further action needed --Elonka 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles where there seems to be some edit warring and incivility going on.

• Abd (talk · contribs) added a notice top of the MfD pointing out that some of the editors had been involved in an ArbCom case about the subject [1]
• It was then removed by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and added to the talk page [2]
• re added by Abd
• Removed by Fredrick day (talk · contribs)
• Abd then added a note at the top about his opinion of the MfD [3]
• Which was removed by Fredrick day [4] as an "attempt to slur good faith editors" with a threat to be blocked, and then reinstated by himself ("let people see you for what you are") [5]
• Abd then asks on the talk page for someone to warn Fredrick day for his "incivility" and is told by Fredrick to take it to ANI himself [6]

For the sake of openness, I voted keep, but I have no opinion on the dispute going on here. -- Naerii 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Naerii. Actually, when I asked for help, I had not seen Fredrick day's reversion of his edit. While it could still be seen as uncivil, there is so much incivility around here that I'd be popping up on AN/I several times a day if I reported it all. I simply wanted the facts to be before the !voters and the closer. It is my view that the ArbComm decision on which the MfD was based has been misrepresented, rather badly. It was a carefully crafted decision, and it appears that what ArbComm did has been incorrectly interpreted by some who had been deeply involved in content disputes with PHG. I made no accusations that could remotely be interpreted as "slurs," to my knowledge. I stated sourced facts, and stated opinion as opinion, I have learned something from editing this beast. (I.e., the facts are obvious from the Arbitration and have been, in various places, quoted as well, but the significance of the facts, that it's important to be aware of them before reviewing the contributions in the MfD, is an opinion, not a fact. I'd stand on it, though.) To say that certain editors are, with respect to the MfD, "COI" is specific to that MfD and isn't in any way an accusation of impropriety. Quite simply, though, they are not neutral parties, reviewing the evidence of the ArbComm decision and then the file in question, without prior bias. Contrary to what has been asserted elsewhere, I did not claim that they should not comment, merely that the possible conflict should be disclosed. Clearly, PHG irritated a lot of editors, and nothing about my action here should be taken to condone or approve of that prior behavior. But ArbComm actually and explicitly encouraged PHG to continue to contribute, including contributing to the subject articles through Talk, and this was a relevant fact that was being glossed over; indeed, the contrary was implied in the nomination and first comments. That's prejudicial, and it was apparently accepted by many commentors as true.--Abd (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The only clarification I would make is that I said "you should be blocked" not that I made a threat to block - I'm not an admin, so have no powers in that direction. There is no dispute as far as I'm concerned, I've had my say and will not be editing either that MFD again or communicating with abd. If there is a dispute it's not with me because I'm done. Yes I removed content but then thought better of it and self-reverted. Yes, if an admin wants to block me, they are free to do so - but block should be preventive not punitive and I've already stipulated here that I will not communicate with Abi or further edit that MFD - so the preventation is taken care of on my side. So if there is any future edit warring or incivility on that article - I've left the building so to speak. --Fredrick day 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not bring this to AN/I and I have no plan to pursue a complaint against this editor. Had he not reverted his edit, I might have. Prudent.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue here is Abd edit warring and accusing people who revert him of having COIs etc. -- Naerii 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I don't see edit warring on my part in the diffs above. I see possible edit warring in the second removal of my prefatory material, but I accepted that, specifically desiring to avoid edit warring, and I then saw clear edit warring in the removal of the very careful note inserted to replace it. Which material is still there, in spite of many editors observing it. It was the removal of this very cautious material that was much more clearly edit warring, and it appears the editor realized that and self-reverted. As to "accusing people," Naerii has confused two things: I called the editors who were involved (or adverse) parties in the ArbComm case "COI." Those were not necessarily the same editors as those who reverted me. If anyone is still concerned about this, I'd urge reviewing the history carefully. I was quite careful, myself.--Abd (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Abd didn't notify people that some of the voters had been in a recent Arb case with PHG, he stated that the editors were continuing a edit war - when it was pointed out that his statement was incorrect, he changed it to read that those editors had conflict of interest. He declined to move the piece himself, so I moved it to talk where he could discuss his conspiracy theories at leisure without disrupting the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I notified people about the ArbComm case involving major commentors and the nominator. Edit warring was only asserted, in Talk, not on the project page, about one editor only. The "COI" edit was long before that. No "conspiracy theory" was involved, no accusations of bad faith or impropriety. Essentially, the above shows that this user did not have the foggiest idea of what was happening, his memory is distorted and very much out of sequence. So new? It's not a crime, however much confusion it may cause.

For convenience, here is the original notice I placed:

It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered furtherance of a content dispute. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate.

I then started to list parties to the Arbitration. Some "content disputes" are "edit wars," but not all, and I did not consider the "COI" parties to be edit warring. I don't think the statement above, my original controversial edit, matches what Shell_Kinney described above as a clarification. Again, so what? No action is being requested by me. However, I'm a bit concerned by what follows.--Abd (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support a timeout if his disruption resumes. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Second block threat today, it seems. The "disruption" was? (From context, I'd assume that JzG is referring to me.) [sig added from History: --Abd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008]

No idea, since you didn't sign. But if it's Abd, you have a strange definition of threat. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, I'll add a sig. Another user today said -- with regard to this incident -- "you should be blocked," or something like that, and you wrote "I'll support a timeout" which I interpreted as a reference to a block. But the question asked wasn't about me, exactly, it was about what you meant by "if his disruption resumes." What disruption? Any user may be blocked for disruption reasonably foreseen, but it is important to distinguish between disruption and disagreement. Hence, "what disruption" does seem an important question. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Highshines sock

Resolved

User:BeautifulSummer is a clear User:Highshines sock. He edits the same articles with the same patterns, but most importantly, he works in coordination with commons:User:Highshines (see [7] vs. [8], [9] vs. [10], etc.). Ask me privately if you wish to know why I have posted here and not at SSP. Please block indef. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the evidence above, I can't see any reason why CheckUser would be necessary. This is blatantly obvious. I've blocked a few of Highshines' socks in the past, and the behavior and article range matches as well. Blocked. Khoikhoi 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's theology lesson

Resolved

 – page has been protected

There is a group of churches known as the Churches of Christ. Among other things, some of their members believe that their church tradition has existed in an unbroken line since the first century, and so they are profoundly offended by discussion of their church within a historical context, or as something that has a beginning. Specifically, origins in the Presbyterian church. And so they come, and delete all reference of their church's history from the article. But I'm sort of involved, and have 3 reverts already, so I don't think I ought to revert and semiprotect the article if some uninvolved admin is available to review the sources I added to the discussion on the talk page, and, if they think the sources support that the church does have a historical beginning, take what action seems appropriate to them. Thank you very much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My nonadmin advice/observations after looking at the history page is 1.)It's disruptive. 2.)It's an edit war. Take a break and warn the anons about WP:3RR and ask them to discuss on the talk page. Then WP:RFC. If that fails, I would ask for semi-protection since the removal of sourced content can be construed as vandalism, although content disputes are not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Until an administrator can decide appropriate action, I've warned the main anon involved, and added the page to my watchlist to monitor transgressions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the wrong version. People have already been warned, so chat about it on the talkpage. From two seconds of looking at the talk, perhaps it just needs some disambiguation? Regardless, this is a technical response to a social problem, and won't work without someone on the social side. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only disambig that would assist the IP is an article like The holy truth about how we're right and you're wrong, or The biblically inerrant history of the Churches of Christ, according to the Churches of Christ. They are, upon review, actually arguing their theology as history. This never works out well, and I suspect this could rapidly become the new controversial article, not unlike the Israeli/Palestinian articles, the India/Pakistan, the Scientology, and so on. Facts vs. faith never works great. Unfortunately, no one's willing to let that happen. Like Wisdom, I'll drop it onto my watchlist, but that's only 6 more reverts against another 'true believer'. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you advising making the page semiprotected forever? (Not that I'm arguing against it, I'm just curious.) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could actually turn out to be necessary; if there's one thing these people have trouble doing, it's letting something go. Kind of ironic, what with them being taught to turn the other cheek and all... HalfShadow (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that all religions have trouble living BOTH sides of the golden rule, in fairness. But yeah, zealotry brings out the semi-protect in all non-zealots of that particular stripe, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If I read the log correctly, Kylu protected the page (and added a protection template), rather than semi-protected it. It seems to me that semi-protection should have been tried first. But I may have missed something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Littleteddy. While checking the IPs of some one-off vandal accounts, I discovered that these accounts were all either checkuser- Confirmed or  Likely to be run by Littleteddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So the question is what to do with Littleteddy? Warn, spank, or permanently show the door. Thatcher 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what he has to say. John Reaves 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see the connection here - my IP according to whatismyipaddress.com is 203.189.4.98. I use a shared computer to edit... maybe that is it? I have frequently neglected to log out in the past and I found that my account was twice used for vandalism. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, admiting to having your account compromised means we can no longer trust it anymore. Leaving it availible to edit would further compromise the security of Wikipedia. Why should we not indefinately block this account since it is clear that it cannot be secured from others who are using it for abuse? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have agreed to log out properly in future. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see that as solving the problem. Perhaps people have stolen your password while you were logged in. I still say that since the account is compromised, we need to block this to protect Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a hell of a lot more going on here than Littleteddy is admitting to.

If you have a look at the deleted page Talk:Courtenay Gass, you will see that Littleteddy suggested article Courtenay Gass was a hoax, then withdrew the allegation. Courtenay Gass was created and edited by accounts in that sock drawer. It beggars belief that Littleteddy would by sheer luck end up at the talk page of an article that was created by an account that uses the same computer as he. These accounts might not be straight out socks, but something is going on here, and Littleteddy knows what.

Furthermore, one of the articles created by members of that sock drawer, and subsequently prodded then withdrawn by Littleteddy, is the real life name of User:Auroranorth (I'm not going to out his real name here; admins may email me for details). Auroranorth was previously blocked for disruption, and responded by sockpuppeteering with accounts User:Seventy dot, User:BigMacintosh, User:Johnny Zoo 85, User:Social Studiously, User:KyleMorrison and User:Homestarrman. Auroranorth ended up blocked indefinitely, but begged for forgiveness and was unblocked and placed on probation. At the conclusion of his probation he resigned the account; some of us suspected that he was starting afresh with a new account.

Clearly there is some relationship between Littleteddy and Auroranorth. Littleteddy is collaborating with, and working on the same computer as, accounts that wrote a hoax article whose title is Auroranorth's real name. If Littleteddy continues feeding us the kind of crap he's feeding us above, I'd say we're left with no option but to assume that Littleteddy is Auroranorth, in which case he has long ago used up all his second chances and should be shown the door.

Hesperian 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As the direct relationship can be proved by a number of methods - it is quite disheartening to think such a user can continue such behaviour after already being in restricted mode in the earlier incarnation - due to some astonishing behaviour then. Perhaps the user needs a year away - and maybe in that time either some maturity or clearer thinking might develop, or perhaps there are other online communities that might cope with such behaviour - it clearly is not suitable for membership of this one SatuSuro 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In view of the reasoning provided by hesperian in the material below - I can see a possibly redeeming point from his (hesperians) reasoning and consequently would be reluctant to endorse either a defence or prosecution against the current incarnation. SatuSuro 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that arbcom, long ago, ruled that different accounts run by real different human beings, acting collaboratively to disrupt Wikipedia in such a way as to be indistinguisible from one person abusing multiple account could still be blocked as sockpuppets. The compelling problem is the use of multiple accounts to disrupt towards the same end; regardless of how many hands are inside of the socks, multiple accounts cannot be used to disrupt in a coordinated manner. As a second, and more pertinent note, this one clearly quacks.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it doesn't really quack. The links are there, but there's no overlap in editing interests, and no consistency of persona. Littleteddy certainly seems good faith. The other accounts are infantile vandals and hoaxers. Since I've made a case against him, here's a devil's advocate hypothetical in his favour (quoted to indicate that I'm not asserting this as fact):

"Littleteddy is a completely reformed Auroranorth who happened to google his real name one day, and found a Wikipedia article. His first thought was that some moronic schoolmates of his, who had already used his account to vandalise on a previous occasion, had created a hoax article on him. So he went and prodded it. He then checked out the contributors to the article, and prodded some more of their hoaxes. Then all of a sudden he was beset by doubts - perhaps the article under his name was a valid article on a historical figure who just happens to have the same name as he; after all, the article was fairly well written and had sources that checked out on Google Books. So he withdraws the prods pending access to the sources. Shortly afterwards, the moronic schoolmates get blocked and the hoaxes deleted, and Littleteddy carries on happily. And now all of a sudden he finds himself accused of sockpuppetry, simply because he edits through the same school IP as these morons."

Hesperian 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not unheard of for a sockmaster to generate a bunch of vandal socks for he himself to warn and block. Remember the whole Archtransit thing? It is actually quite a common pattern. Someone creates a bunch of vandalism-only accounts, which he "discovers" and warns via his main account. The compelling evidence here is the vandalism from one account followed by the warning from a different account, using the same IP... Heck, Archtransit even did it so well, he became an Admin because of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP address that Littleteddy has posted above, resolves to the company that holds the IT outsourcing contract for Auroranorth's school. At this point I am satisfied beyond all doubt that Littleteddy is Auroranorth. However, I am not yet satisfied that Littleteddy has done anything wrong. I am prepared to believe that the IP addresses used by these vandals are school addresses shared by Littleteddy, and that Littleteddy has therefore been caught in the crossfire. In Littleteddy's defence, the only association between his account and the vandal accounts, other than IP, is that he prodded some of their hoax articles, then subsequently withdrew the prods. Hesperian 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Not to belabor the point, but lets consider this from Mr. Occam's point of view. One option is that Littleteddy prods a bunch of articles, all of which, unknowing to him, were created by people who HAPPEN to be from his school, none of which he knew anything about. Or, as an alternate explanation, he created the articles with his "bad hand" accounts, and prodded them with his "good hand" account to make himself look better... Which makes more sense? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the truth than what makes sense.

Look, it was me who repeatedly blocked Auroranorth last time. It was me who tracked down his sockpuppets. It was me who had to clean up after him. He was a little turd, and he behaved like a little turd. He made Wikipedia unpleasant for me for a long period of time, and I couldn't stand him, and I would never have believed I'd be defending him here. But even when he was a turd he wasn't a vandal - he was an immature kid who did nothing but make huge messes that other people had to clean up for him. And before he abandoned that account he was well on the way to becoming an acceptable editor. And if Littleteddy is he, then it appears that that process has continued, because there is no evidence that the Littleteddy account has ever been used in bad faith. I don't think an apparently good faith user should be booted, just because it has been tied to an IP address used by vandals, which is known to resolve to a school. Hesperian 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we both agree there. Even IF I am right, and I make no claims to be, as long as Littleteddy has stopped the good hand/bad hand baloney, and intends only to be a productive editor from here on out, there is no need to block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for Littleteddy to be given the benefit of the doubt. Based on his contributions, and assuming good faith, a caught in the crossfire situation seems to be the most likely here. —Moondyne click! 05:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The behaviour of these other accounts is not consistent with LT's known identifying editing features which were consistent in both his previous account and his previous account's known socks. (It should be noted that although only two admins were made aware of his new identity, due to his wish as a young user who had matured somewhat to reinvent himself without his former mistakes, he also on my advice emailed arbcom-l with details of his new and old identities, as WP:SOCK takes evading scrutiny very seriously.) There is some doubt over a couple of them and some of the edits made, and whether there was any meatpuppetry going on, but the doubts are not sufficiently strong for me to wish to question his good faith. I had been keeping tabs on his progress and generally speaking have been happy with what I've seen. I would be very very disappointed indeed if any of this does turn out to be true. Orderinchaos 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hesp, "Littleteddy" was one of half a dozen or so sockpuppets we identified in December as socks Auroranorth created in order to "start over" when his probation was finished. I just forwarded a copy of one of the last emails in the threads to refresh memories of admins involved in that discussion. Nothing was ever done about this or the other accounts that I'm aware of because Gnangarra and I were the only ones concerned about the situation. Sarah 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The other 'socks' were blocked indefinitely because they were requested via email RTV. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I was fairly careful about which accounts I called "confirmed" and which I called "likely." Judge for yourselves whether the timing of these edits supports the "shared computer" explanation.

March 19

• Coyle and Cassidy High School . . 11:25 . . Littleteddy (space)
• (User creation log) . . 11:23 . . Darrylhair (New user account)
• Talk:Mzoli's . . 11:02 . . Littleteddy (references?)

Feb 27

• User talk:Littleteddy . . 10:54 . . Littleteddy (???)
• User talk:Littleteddy . . 10:53 . . Littleteddy (???)[11]
• User talk:I'm On Speed . . 10:50 . . I'm On Speed ({{unblock-auto|1=124.169.45.168|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Goodbo". The reason given for Goodbo's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|3=Redvers|4=8025)[12]
• User talk:Goodbo . . 10:48 . . Goodbo (redvers u homo)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:47 . . Goodbo (ok)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:47 . . Goodbo (homo)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (homo)
• User talk:Goodbo . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (false positive warning)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:46 . . Goodbo (Talk | contribs (homo) [13]
• (User creation log) . . 10:45 . . Goodbo (New user account)
• Julia Gillard . . 10:44 . . I'm On Speed (fixed possible bias errors, linked 'election loss' to 2001 election, linked other things and clarified Jenny Macklin's current position)
• (User creation log) . . 10:41 . . I'm On Speed (Talk | contribs | block) (New user account)
• N User talk:Dhilu . . 10:38 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (welcome)
• User talk:Rahuljk2002 . . 10:38 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (warn)

Consider that someone from this computer, in the space of 15 minutes, made an edit as Littleteddy, created the account I'm On Speed (talk · contribs), created the account Goodbo (talk · contribs), got blocked as Goodbo, and then posted two autoblock unblock requests, from I'm On Speed and Littleteddy. I suppose Littleteddy could have gone to the bathroom for those 10 minutes and then gotten his seat back without realizing what had happened, but if so then that has happened many times.

Finally, a fresh check of his acknowledged IP today shows that in between making his replies here, someone from the same IP address was logged in as Fitzcj94da (talk · contribs). The technical evidence is reasonably good that these edits are coming from a single PC and not multiple PCs connected to a single router. I would be happy to have any other checkuser doublecheck my findings. Thatcher 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the difference between multiple computers sharing the same characteristics (if it's a computer lab that's plausible), and a single computer? I agree this smells bad though. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple computer labs, actually. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • comment I personally know Fitzcj94da. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can confirm that there are multiple computers connected to a single router. We've got three IP addresses, the one I already acknowledged (203.189.4.98), 203.189.4.97 and one more (I believe it was blocked by Butseriouslyfolks, as I have tried to edit anonymously a few times) 203.189.4.108. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW all of these IP addresses are shared with multiple computers - about 100 of them. Logging into one computer could assign either one of the three IPs which can change throughout the browsing session (for example, I tried to edit anonymously and was stopped by Spebi's block and tried again and was stopped by Butseriouslyfolks' block). Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been fooled by this guy before, and am loath to be fooled again. I've defended him here, but the timings are pretty compelling. They are consistent with someone logging out and back in as another user. They are consistent with a group of students mucking about together in the same computer lab. It is very hard to believe that they reflect two parties, unaware of each other, operating through the same IP. In light of the timings I am inclined to revert to my original statement that Littleteddy knows what is going on here, and he isn't telling. If he won't come clean aboout this, I think the only reasonable response is for us to treat him as a sockpuppetteer. As I said previously, he has already used up all his last chances under account Auroranorth, so if we're going to treat him as a sockpuppetteer, that means an indefinite block. Hesperian 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I can tell you that I know who is doing the vandalism (it's not me). Your assertions are correct but I am not the vandal and according to WP:SOCK I am not a sockpuppeteer. I just wanted to carry on 'peacefully' as you said in your statement above. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to give you the email addresses of the vandals? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you go to school with a group of Wikipedia vandals but you are completely innocent? Thatcher 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

March 11

• Courtenay Gass . . 06:43 . . Gasscg94wa (talk · contribs) (←Blanked the page)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . 04:51 . . Historyluvver (talk · contribs) (fixing)
• Courtenay Gass . . 04:47 . . Historyluvver (talk · contribs) (referenced and completed)

March 12

• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 05:13 . . Littleteddy (test1 warning)
• Glass . . 05:11 . . Gasscg94wa (←Replaced page with 'Glass is what bottles are made of lol.')
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:22 . . Historyluvver (warning)
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:21 . . Gasscg94wa (←Blanked the page)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . 02:21 . . Historyluvver (homeys)
• User talk:Gasscg94wa . . 02:20 . . Historyluvver (i love u courtenay from ian)
• Talk:Courtenay Gass . . 02:17 . . Littleteddy (Talk | contribs | block) (removed comments - i think i found that textbook so for now i will leave it)

It is obviously not a coincidence when one editor edits Courtenay Gass with the edit summary referenced and completed and two hours later someone on the same IP blanks the page. It is not a coincidence when Littleteddy and Historyluvver edit Courtenay Gass (i love u courtenay from ian), Historyluvver warns Gasscg4wa, Gasscg4wa vandalizes Glass, then Littleteddy issues a warning, and they all come from the same IP address. The question on the table is really, is Littleteddy being honest about his relationship to these accounts, and even if he his, do we continue to tolerate his shenanigans? Thatcher 14:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am being completely honest about this!!! Courtenay Gass (giving last name seeing as though it's already been splashed around this page) is a student at my school in the same year who happens to be in most of my classes. 'Ian' I assume is Ian (won't give last name) from my year, but he's got nothing to do with it. By the way, it's Gasscg94wa, not Gasscg4wa. This is his school computer username, GassCourtenayG(his middle name beginning with G)94 wa(wa -> code for the town in which he resides). What shenanigans, Thatcher? Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that the IP addresses I gave have been blocked from anon editing because people who don't have accounts do one-off vandalism and get us all blocked from anon editing. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the diffs, deleted diffs and edits of the above users, and while I am still convinced that Littleteddy is a good faith editor, and has not sockpuppeted in the sense of creating bad hand accounts and vandalising with them, I'm really not sure what he's been getting up to with his mates in the school computer lab - it seems most of these are throwaway accounts by real people. The fact the edits are occurring between 5pm and 11pm in the same range of both LT and the throwaways concerns me. There does seem to be some mutual knowledge of what is going on between the accounts and LT at times. However at times they appear to be working at cross purposes, as if one's gone in and done something, the other's seen it, balked at it and reacted. I think we do owe him a chance to explain, but if it turns out he's been playing silly buggers on us, I will be most unimpressed given the effort I and others went to to assist in the rehabilitation of this user. Orderinchaos 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think its appropriate to block all of the accounts. Reason is that Thatcher after discussion was unable to separate Littleteddy from the other editors, seeking further clarification as to whether there was any separation due to school terms Thatcher concluded that the similarities are also outside of the school term. Additionally LT has a past history of sockpuppets see User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets, where he also used the it was someone else excuse. Gnangarra 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a block per Gnangarra's reasoning above. The technical evidence outside of the school term warrants either a proper explanation of what exactly is has been going on or a block. I'm not convinced that *all* these accounts are Littleteddy's but I do believe a good number of them are his and it seems like a good hand-bad hand situation or perhaps showing off to his schoolmates. This user has been given chance after chance and I really don't understand why we continue to let him play us for fools. Some of us weren't all that comfortable with the circumstances in which Littleteddy started over and given this user's past history with abusive sockpuppetry, it is impossible to overlook the current evidence as some crazy mix-up. Littleteddy needs to come clean about exactly what has been going on and give us a proper explanation instead of playing us fools and taking advantage of very kind people. Sarah 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-outside point: This situation is also part of a Checkuser request on Simple English Wikipedia. There are multiple accounts used for vandalism with a distinct pattern as well as an account for Littleteddy. The Littleteddy account has taken no part in vandalism and while only active one day, have made nothing but useful contributions. The actions with us seems to support his statements here. Creol (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (Simple English CU)

What would you like to know (e.g. questions)? I will do my best to answer them. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 01:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this

"Littleteddy is a completely reformed Auroranorth who happened to google his real name one day, and found a Wikipedia article. His first thought was that some moronic schoolmates of his, who had already used his account to vandalise on a previous occasion, had created a hoax article on him. So he went and prodded it. He then checked out the contributors to the article, and prodded some more of their hoaxes. Then all of a sudden he was beset by doubts - perhaps the article under his name was a valid article on a historical figure who just happens to have the same name as he; after all, the article was fairly well written and had sources that checked out on Google Books. So he withdraws the prods pending access to the sources. Shortly afterwards, the moronic schoolmates get blocked and the hoaxes deleted, and Littleteddy carries on happily. And now all of a sudden he finds himself accused of sockpuppetry, simply because he edits through the same school IP as these morons."

is mostly true... except I knew exactly who kept creating hoax articles (Courtenay Gass). Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Littleteddy, explain this. You found an article under your own name, and an article under the name of someone who is in all your classes at school, created/edited by the same author. Don't ask me to believe that you actually thought this might be a coincidence - that a good faith user had created legitimate articles on unrelated historical figures that just happen to match your and Courtenay's names. That is ridiculous. So why did you withdraw your prods on these articles? Hesperian 02:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For my name, I withdrew the prod so I could ask Courtenay why he did it. I was going to speedy it as a hoax once I knew. For Courtenay's, I found the textbook (can't remember what it was called now) and I withdrew it on those grounds. I was going to look at the book and see, then talk to Courtenay about it or ask him whether he had created it. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, why would I want to vandalise Wikipedia in the first place? I've always been for the encyclopedia and never participated in any vandalism activities. I am in no way encouraging the vandals to vandalise, I can merely become an observer. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you have never been a vandal, and I don't believe that you have vandalised here. The remaining question for me is the extent to which you enabled, actively or by inaction, these other vandals. I can certainly imagine a situation where a group of morons are vandalising Wikipedia and also teasing you for taking Wikipedia seriously, lacking the sense of humour to enjoy their vandalism, etcetera. A great deal of peer pressure can be applied in situations like that - pressure to participate, or at least not to be the party-pooper who ruins their fun.

But I'm not accusing you of anything along these lines; I'm just telling you what I'm thinking. As far as I'm concerned, the situation is way too grey to support a block against your account.

Hesperian 11:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That sums it up quite well. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Never vandalised, except for this explained here as Oh my gosh, LOL! I was trying to warn the user that did it but I accidentally used the revert tool. I apologise for my mistake, I was attempting to act in good faith. Sorry! which makes no sense; and here (self-reverted, both edit and revert with false edit summaries) explained here as I am using a shared computer, maybe that's it?, which makes no sense either. This was followed by lots of questions, to me and to the admin noticeboards, asking what can be done to prevent this in future... which to me now sounds like "oops, I vandalised with my good-hand account by accident". ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The first diff is also interesting from a timing point of view. If you look at the history of Telaviv1's talk page, the edit comes four minutes after the end of a concerted run of nasty sock-SPAs - You're My Friend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tahlin Harris is a Bi 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tahlin Harris is a Bisexual I Want Him To Be My Boyfriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Telaviv1sux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, most interestingly of all Zubebj99ka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another one with the account naming pattern Littleteddy has described above. That's really Not Good at all. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is somewhat technical, and I can not share the specifics, obviously. However, I attempted to analyze Littleteddy's IP use with whois and traceroute. The IP he gives above, 203.189.4.98, is true, and is registered to Crox Development, and there are shenanigans on it, and it is certainly plausible that it is a shared IP at his school. Littleteddy has used over a dozen other IP addresses registered to a different ISP that I will call "Kangaroo." Some of these IPs only have Littleteddy's edits but some of them also have shenanigans. There are also a large number of vandal-only accounts that also use "Kangaroo" IPs and traceroute puts them on the same network branch with the same first-upstream-server as IPs used by Littleteddy. I can not be positive that Littleteddy's school does not have internet service from two different providers, but it seems unlikely. I can not be positive that the "Kangaroo" IPs are not shared, but it seems unlikely. It seems more likely that "Kangaroo" ISP edits come from Littleteddy's home. Thatcher 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably can't confirm this to us directly, Thatcher, but do any of the accounts vandalising via the Kangeroo addresses have WP usernames in the format Littleteddy has given for his school-related vandals? The format is Xxxxxxnnxx - 1x capital, 5x lower, 2x number, 2x lower. If they are operating on Kangeroo, then all the accounts are Littleteddy's. If they're not, then we must continue to ponder. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Those account names conform to a particular school's student account login system, by the way - hence why they appear so consistent - I checked with an outside person who has some knowledge of the school in question. User:Cg9806 lists one such account that does not exist on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the school's website is also hosted on Crox Development. Orderinchaos 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The only accounts with those names are the two already mentioned above. Evidence suggests they are indeed friends of Littleteddy rather than sockpuppets. Most of the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Littleteddy (including the collapsed section) are from Kangaroo IPs. Thatcher 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the Feb 27 edits detailed above are from Kangaroo, not Crox. Thatcher 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue, I think, is that there vandal accounts on Kangaroo IPs that are on the same network branch as Littleteddy, and there are Kangaroo IP addresses shared by Littleteddy and the vandal accounts. It may very well be that some of the shenanigans originate from a shared IP address at school. But there appear to be additional shenanigans that can not be explained by school-based editing. Thatcher 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves message on my User Talk page

[14]

Also, commenting at an archive is pointless. I'm not sure I understand how you ever became an admin. John Reaves 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caltrop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He linked to the AN/I archives: He does have a point in that commenting on archive pages is pointless, as nobody's going to read the comment. Perhaps you should revert your edit there and post it somewhere with an active discussion instead? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are here...take a look at that archived discussion. Caltrop is doing it again. Moving his talk page where no one can find and mucking with the history. This is bewildering behavior for an administrator. John Reaves 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Reaves here. Moving the edits to an other page, then deleting the history, effectively making the search for a specific diff tedious is not an acceptable use of admins tools, in my opinion. (I might be missing something, I have no admin rights on this account). This is not a question of good faith or not, you are effectively doing something that you were told was not ok. The policy states that removing comments is ok, not that deleting the page to avoid scrutiny is. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John says he's moving the pages... does that require admin tools? Avruch ^T 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post this here Caltrop? Am I out of the loop on some history here? Is John Reaves not supposed to be on your talk page? Was his question hurtful? I ask out of ignorance; I don't get it. :\ --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link you refer to on your talk page states that "warnings may still be viewed in page history." That link is simply referring to removal of comments, not deleting pages entirely so the archives are not visible. Enigma ^msg! 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Would it be appropriate to move his pages around (over redirects or deletions, and then restore the "current" talk page without deleting the redirects) in order to create a proper move history from his talk page? Or perhaps make a null edit naming the current location of his talk page? Anyway, if he doesn't understand that what he did destroys history even if it doesn't destroy any actual information, desysoping seems an appropriate remedy for misuse of delete, even in his own talk-space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego has already fixed this guys screwups once, he knew that what he was doing wrong and against policy. John Reaves 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the history back. Hopefully he'll take a hint this time. John Reaves 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't, I think there would be grounds to consider removing his bit. This suggests he hasn't used his admin tools for anything but disruption at his own talk pages and archives since 27 August - several of the deletions appear to regard matters which *should* be open for scrutiny. Orderinchaos 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

I've had enough of this guy. He constantly wikistalks me, annoys the hell out of me, and is right now RVing my edits on a page when I have an In Use template there, and his ignorance has caused 2 edit conflicts already when I try to make some changes.

He's also RVing a Redirect of a page for a Pilot of a show that doesn't need it's own article (I posted a notice on the talk page that ti should be removed around January, nobody opposed it).

I apologize for the way I've been acting towards him, but he's just annoying the shit out of me.

Please do something. -Karaku (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When another editor reverts you, especially when performing a controversial action such as redirecting an entire page without any discussion, then discussion is the medium to undertake. Naturally, some fault lies with him for continuing the conflict, but you should have stopped immediately and started discussing. Also, simply adding the {{inuse}} template does not give you the right to arbitrarily declare that only you can edit a page - see WP:OWN. If you want to make changes, then make them and if they are reverted or disagreed with, then bring to discussion. However, to be frank, the ability of other editors to discuss with you appears to be limited, as personal attacks ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) are not tolerated, and User:The Rogue Penguin even invited you to discuss your changes in several of his edit summaries ([20], [21]). Although, again, he continued the conflict, the frequent incivility in your edit summaries and actions were a natural deterrence to any possible discussion. Please cease your edit warring and move to discussion, or blocks may be appropriate to resolve this situation. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this as these two reached the level of escalation, and left each of them a note. Relevant threads include:

• User talk:Karaku#Please calm down
• User talk:The Rogue Penguin#Karaku
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: )

Hope that's helpful to anybody else looking into this. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While one can argue that TheRoguePenguin has not handled the situation ideally, I think there is a real enforcement problem here. Karaku just recently returned from his fourth block for gross incivility and 3RR violations, and it took him all of twenty minutes of activity to rack up another warning for each violation from a previously-uninvolved editor (see incivility warning and 3RR warning).

Karaku seems to have made some positive contributions in the past (and as it turns out, I happen to agree with him that Garage Kids should probably be a redirect). But I mean, I kinda thought that if you returned from a block and immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the block, you didn't really get the courtesy of warnings that time around... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have tried their very utmost to be patient and understanding, and Karaku seems to have ignored useful or helpful advice at every turn. It's unfortunate, but also unsurprising, that this user is currently blocked for one month. We can revisit these issues, at that time. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Derby (event)

Copyvio of http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets/is1590.htm. Article has been tagged CSD twice as db-copyvio. Creator keeps removing CSD tag. Claims to have "rewritten" it in their own words but not many words were actually changed. I'm not going to edit war or 3RR over a CSD tag so an admin should have a look. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And after Shell deleted it, the user has recreated it with same copyvio. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The user has now removed the speedy tag twice [22] [23] - in addition to the times he/she removed it before the article was originally deleted. The user claims to have completely rewritten it from scratch, but a simple look at this diff will show that it's little more than a re-arrangement of paragraphs (last half of the "statistics" section grafted onto the end of the lead-in, etc) and a few words changed. Would salting be wise? --Badger Drink (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This just got re-deleted because of the speedy tag, however, when reviewing the article vs the source given, I'm not seeing anything I'd consider a copyvio anymore. Word for word I found one phrase (5 words total) that was the same. There was a great deal in the article that wasn't covered in the source and they were laid out differently. Shell ^babelfish 04:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there was a major revision after my tag, the article was still virtually the same. I don't have access to deleted pages, so I'm going by memory, but I definitely remember parts like "Unlike a tournament or fishing rodeo", and "Fishing derbies are excellent family activities and are conducive to participation by the increasing number of single-parent families . . . a fishing derby places emphasis on the individual participants and their exposure to fisheries resources and the sport of fishing." (even more was lifted in the original article, but I'm cutting some out just to save space), and so on. The user re-arranged the structure somewhat, but it was hardly "from scratch", and still a copyvio. Striking my own comment out, as it was nearly wholly incorrect. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo, yet again

...has returned, in the form of SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs). As yet, he hasn't taken up any of OM's disruptive activities; do we let the sock continue (effectively granting an unblock), or block it has a block-evading sock? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's evading a block, he's evading a block. Seems straightforward: block. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're right, unfortunately, and I've blocked him. I'm hoping he'll make a compelling case for an unblock, but I guess that's up to him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(A) OM's block is totally illegitimate in the first place, as is continued enforcement of it; (B) You know this is the same individual how, exactly? Don't shoot first and ask questions later. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The case is complex. While it is likely that, on cautious review, the block would be lifted, he has not requested that, and he has also requested that I not "defend" him. Wikipedia is not going to be served by tilting at windmills, and Sarcasticidealist seems to be playing this quite straight. Unless the block is appealed and found not legitimate, acting to block socks is certainly allowed. We could decide to ignore the prior account, WP:IAR and all that, but ... I'm certainly not going to propose that. Believe it or not, I have no disruptive intent at all! As to how the sock was identified, it would not be rocket science, and I'm asking that the precious time of a checkuser not be wasted. If somehow it were to turn out that SpiritWorldWiki is not Mbstpo -- we should be so lucky to have another like him -- then the real user will presumably ask for unblock, and it can be reviewed at that time. If Mbstpo wants unblock, he'll ask for it. (You can tell from the edits that this is an experienced Wikipedian, this is not a noob, so blocks are relatively harmless.) On the other hand, if others decide to move for the unblock of Mbstpo, I would support that. I am not going to move in that direction myself. There is plenty else to do, simply to follow up on all the clues Mbstpo left behind. So this 63-year-old editor is following up on clues left by a 27-year-old writer, because I've found it to be -- always -- worthwhile. If this was music, he'd be Mozart. And, yes, we can't allow Mozart in the living room, the fart jokes, you know. Mozart, we might notice, was quite disruptive and was hated by quite a few people in his time. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer B:

• the account was created just after OM scrambled his password;
• the account is run by a rabid inclusionist;
• the account has devoted all of its time to OM's areas of interest: sweeping policy proposals with no chance of acceptance (not that there's anything wrong with that), Wikiproject Parliamentary Procedure, and Ayn Rand;
• when I asked the account if it was OM, it declined to answer me and continued editing;
• Quack

If any admin thinks that my evidence for this block was anything short of overwhelming, she/he has my cheerful permission to unblock without further consulting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I followed the case a bit. This editor created a hoax article, among other things. Editors who would knowingly make the encyclopedia worse rather than better should not be welcome here. Hoaxes make the encyclopedia worse. So the solution seems obvious to me. (Not to mention that this previously banned editor had already been given lots of "one last chance"s.) Why would we want to keep an editor around who fabricates sources? Friday (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't, at all. The trouble is that that hoax (and his ensuing increasing disbelievable denial) was the only apparent bad-faith action he'd taken his whole time here. In the meantime, he'd done some very good mainspace work. With the new account, he did the very good mainspace work without the hoaxing. I would very much love to see him admit responsibility for the hoaxing and repent, that he might get on with his useful mainspace work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted it (the hoax) to me, but he is essentially burned out by the toxic atmosphere regarding reform on Wikipedia. He really should take a break. Meanwhile, I'm trying to do something to lessen the amount of smoke emitted, it burns the eyes. I do see, not only what Wikipedia needs, but how to get there, and it will take time. He's young and impatient, and when he runs into the totally expectable obstacles, he gets frustrated and, yes, angry. Change must come to Wikipedia or it will die. But it must also come step by step, with each step enjoying consensus. It takes time to build that, usually. Neither he nor I have a crystal ball, we don't know how much time we have. But probably more than a year and less than perhaps five, I'd guess. I don't think people realize how rapidly a project like this could implode. Parts of it are largely invulnerable, but this site ... not necessarily. Depends. And the real question is, what parts of it will survive? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him (by email) not to evade the block. (I asked him before, and now again, after I saw the above mentioned edits.... sore thumb, it was.) He has also requested that I not "defend" him, so I am not taking any action to overturn the block. Obviously, if he is evading a block, new accounts no matter how "nice" can be blocked. When Mbstpo (as Absidy) was blocked, he did post under a series of accounts, similarly, none of it disruptive -- except that block evasion is disruptive in itself, because it creates a fuss.) Sigh. By the way, he apologized profusely to me for the hoax article. I told him that it was actually hilarious -- but don't do it again! My opinion: we need to lighten up, laugh more and block less, at least when it comes to actual contributors, which he was, for a long time. No blocks, and I didn't see any warnings, back to 2005, nothing until this year, 2008. Heavy contributions. Between the creation of the Mbstpo account on March 3, and the block on March , Mbstpo made about 1600 edits. What I will say, not in his defense but for Wikipedia, we might at some point look at what so seriously disturbed such an established Wikipedian that he committed wikisuicide, not once, but twice. It's easy to blow it off as "his problem," and that is partially true, but it is actually our problem, and it is happening all the time, simply in less spectacular ways. He started a project, in fact, to look at this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform and, in particular, the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. Maybe I should add his name.--Abd (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. His talk page isn't locked, and I would very much like to hear him explain why a generally good contributor decided to go and create a hoax (I disagree with you about the merits of hoaxes, though, especially those that editors fabricate sources to defend). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem in the mood to talk usefully about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what! Put a note on his talk page asking him why he did it. I do not want to encourage him to evade the block, and that account was spiked. If he wants, he could answer there with an IP edit from a library. Better, he could send an answer to me, because I can verify it's him with no difficulty. If I am requested to do so, I will pass it on, as long as I consider it not disruptive, this would be an exception to the rule against proxying for a blocked user-- but note, I won't make that exception unless an admin asks me to! In any case, I do know enough to answer, but .... better it come from him. Meanwhile, I mentioned above the project which was set up to study this very question. Mbstpo is certainly not the first! By the way, I don't think I argued the "merits" of hoaxes, but I would like to keep them in perspective. The only damage caused by this hoax was the fuss over it (and that is real damage, I'm not minimizing it). And, absolutely, creating hoax articles is a violation of policy. So the question is the response. What has happened is that alleged disruption in WP space -- which is the real issue for most complaining about Mbstpo -- gets mixed up with the joke in the marriage article (damage: a vandal patroller had to go, Click! normally no block would ensue) -- and the hoax article (complicated -- why did he lie -- after he was already blocked -- about the source book sitting in his lap?) get all mixed up. The WP "disruption" was quite defensible, but not the japes. Again, I could explain his lying on his Talk page without defending it -- and I roasted him pretty well by email over it -- but the energy would be better put into the generic project about Attrition. The issue is not Mbstpo or, for that matter, me, but the welfare of the community on which this project depends. We have a lot of work to do.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To hell with the rules. If he's not actually doing anything wrong, then just because the "rules" say you can block doesn't mean you should. I always thought the best interests of the encyclopedia were more important than bureaucratic masturbation. Furthermore, when I last checked OM claimed to have a source for the alleged "hoax" article he created, although there may have been further developments on that front since then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked, he can ask for an unblock under his original account. I still cannot understand why his enablers are still banging on about his hoax being real, since the fictional figure he tried to create an article about was "killed" in some mountains that don't exist. It was a hoax, he needs to own up. --Fredrick day 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, except that he's apparently scrambled the password to his original account, so any unblock request will have to be from his new one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Original" being used loosely here, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's an original, all right. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. I'm sorry about Weber's comments, but perhaps after he reads what I've been writing, he'll stop beating the dead horse. Hint: it was a hoax. Or, to put it another way, as the editor in question did, Mbstpo exists in a "parallel universe." I.e., Mbstpo is real. Real fiction. Lives in the world of his imagination. In my encyclopedia, the Mbstpo article would be tagged as Fiction or Myth, or, at first, as Unverified. With that, it's an excellent article! ("My encyclopedia" is the sum of all human knowledge. All. Human. Knowledge. It is a work in progress.) By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! But I won't, beyond this very diffuse hint. It would actually violate a number of basic principles if I did. As to Weber, I understand his frustration as well. It's a loss, that Mbstpo is no longer with us -- though he's reading much of what we write. The poor editor who dropped a moderately nasty, mild by comparison, note on my Talk page right after I found out ... poor guy! I was pissed! Kim Bruning, the soul of courtesy, wrote "Fool!" when Mbstpo wrote that he had scrambled his password. But ... it is actually all for the best. I'll try to convince Weber of that.... off to tilt at windmills for the rest of the afternoon. Gotta keep busy, use it or lose it, etc., etc.--Abd (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly hard to work out what the username means. --Reuben (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Any editor who would lift a single finger to defend a hoaxer is not worthy of consideration. Go write fiction somewhere else; here, we're an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! does it look like anyone here really cares what stupid game it's part of? Please stick to the point in future, how clever a hoaxer thinks he is being is frankly not something that should concern us. --Fredrick day 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

seems to be back again, this time as David Janssen (geddit "the fugitive"), I've asked him to pop across here and ask for his block to be lifted. His article edits are excellent and I'd like nothing more for him to stop this stupid block evading and get back to article editing. --Fredrick day 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Where was he banned? Mr.Z-man 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Start at the top and work your way down. --Fredrick day 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't banned, just blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you attack me for "defending a hoaxer", calm down. As I mentioned before, he had said that he had a source, and I saw no reason to disbelieve him--and in fact I did not until I read Fredrick Day's post and re-read the blocking thread. Fine. It was a hoax. Although I am still defending him, altogether--and I fail to see how that's a problem--if not the deed itself. The two need to be considered separately. An indef block, without warning or prior discussion, was still totally uncalled for.

Perhaps I'm being a bit Quixotic here--perhaps you're right that there's no practical gain to be had by defending him. So what? There's a principle involved nonetheless. A user should not have to request an unblock (a process that often requires much supplication and self-abasement if it is to be successful) to put an end to a block that should never have been made in the first place; the community should lift it on its own initiative. That he does not wish to request an unblock does not mean he does not want it--perhaps he is just unwilling to risk having to kowtow in order to do it. I don't blame him. Unblock the account, offer to fix his password (if possible) or at least agree to not instantly re-block any new accounts he may create, and then it will truly be left up to him. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I defended the guy when people were complaining about his far-fetched policy proposals. I even defended his blanket keep votes (or at least rejected any suggestion that he be sanctioned for them), in the same way as I've done for your blanket opposition to self-noms (although I confess to some gratitude for the fact that my RFA passed unanimously during a week in which you evidently had better things to do). Once the block came down, my immediate reaction was to ask for what evidence there was that this article was speedy-able as a hoax. But when the request evidence was forthcoming, I became a supporter of an indefinite (as distinct from infinite) block. A user who creates hoaxes - especially hoaxes that aren't immediately apparent as such, and especially hoaxes that use fabricated offline sources to support themselves - is a serious, serious menace to this project. Such an editor becomes a greater menace to the project when his hoaxes are surrounded by good edits, because it makes the hoax even harder to detect. Indefinitely removing such a user from the project is not a disproportionate response. I would like to have this user's edits on parliamentary procedure back. I wouldn't mind having his edits on policy back, either. But unless/until he explicitly agrees to stop the behaviour for which he was blocked, I can't support an unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Brace yourselves; I'm going to agree with Kurt. There is a good content-creation side to this editor; IF he can promise to concentrate on that without the hoaxes, vandalism, silliness or any of the other drama that got him blocked last time, then no problem with unblocking. But seriously, we said "last chance" the previous time - at the first sign of anything that's pointlessly going to waste other editor's time, out comes the block - for keeps. Fair? Black Kite 23:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Kurt Weber's position here, in part, because this editor is likely to continue to draft some of our missing parliamentary law and procedure articles that we very much need. Having said that, I was one of the first endorsers of the original block (of Absidy) at the time of the "delegable proxy" mess, so it's fair to say I have mixed feelings. I would like to see this editor work out, but suggestions that he limit himself to mainspace have not been well-received. Sigh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Part of the problem with that is that the most serious damage he's done to the project - the creation of a hoax article backed by a fabricated source - has occurred in the mainspace. In any event, though, his most recent incarnation's talk page seems to suggest little interest in reform. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the good faith of Black Kite, this editor actually does not have a history justifying such serious "last chance" warnings. I know it looks that way, but the situation is complicated by many editors having complained vigorously about legitimate actions of this user. I agree that the hoax article raises some serious issues; however, for example, that article is not a serious as a single fabricated source in a normal article. Nobody is coming here searching for information on Obuibo Mbstpo. By all means, he has properly been reprimanded and, this time, a block was clearly within reason, it was much more complicated the time before (Newyorkbrad, in my opinion, improperly involved himself the last time, confirming a block that was actually quite against policy and ArbComm precedent ... but one might note that no complaint has been filed over it.) I essentially raked the user over the coals for lying about the hoax after it had been challenged. But we have a system of escalating responses, and this guy went from 0 to 60 mph in a very, very short time, and he was, I'd say, sorely tried. Frankly, I think he should stay away for a time, he needs a break, in my opinion. He needs to do other things, details like making a living, and I suspect that part of what is happening is a desire to get kicked out permanently so that he can't be tempted to keep editing. However, he knows too much, he knows that he can edit anyway. If he's going to do it, might as well allow the edits to stick. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now seems to be operating under yet another sockpuppet Larry E. Jordan - he was offered a chance to go straight, this seems to be his answer. As with any other abusive sock, I suggest we revert on sight - yes his edits are good but we cannot reward sock-evaders with "oh well!". --Fredrick day 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any "shoot-on-sight" reversions of legitimate content, I will un-revert. The "revert on sight" clause is so we don't have to go through a whole big formal todo with reverting obvious bad-faith edits; it's not there to declare the individual an "un-person". If it's a problem, remove it. If it's a good contribution, there is absolutely no valid or legitimate reason to revert it, regardless of who put it there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Is it time for a community ban now? Wizardman 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some good edits in mainspace - and then stuff like [24]. Sigh. How many accounts is that now? 12? Black Kite 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

he did a whole series of those amongst his other edits - I guess he plans to mix those in with his good edits and see if he can change policy/guidelines that way... --Fredrick day 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, etymologically speaking, he's quite correct. For whatever that's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For anybody who's interested, User:Larry E. Jordan has actually requested unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. How many do we know about now? Oh, wait, I know! I'll list them -- and then the community can consider whether this is a legitimate use of multiple accounts.
  1. Larry E. Jordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  2. David Janssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  3. SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  4. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  5. Thespian Seagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  6. Absidy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  7. Ron Duvall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  8. Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  9. Zxczxczxc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  10. ReplyToSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• and probably others. If the community wants to allow this person to edit at all, perhaps it might wish to consider strengthening the sockpuppet policy; me, I'm partial to one person, one account, other than in quite exceptional circumstances. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was pretty simple, socks = not good except for a specific purpose, and a sock to evade a block always = a blocked sock. Is there some kind of uncertainty here? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:56, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale abusive sockpuppetry has long been a fast ticket out the door. If a person is really interested in returning from a block to contribute productively, and avoids the old haunts and dramatics associated with the original block(s), it seems pretty unlikely to me they're ever going to be caught -- a corollary here is that a user repeatedly caught and blocked for socking is probably returning over and over to the same articles, the same disputes, the same problematic behaviors. A wrongly blocked user might create a sock or two, I suppose, but why so many at once? Why the socks which seem to have been active before OM's block, as linked by Jpg above? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat unusual, in that the socks are being detected and blocked for engaging in exactly the same productive behaviours as the puppeteer, without apparently engaging in the unproductive ones. As for the socks created before OM's block, I believe that OM itself was originally a block-evading sock, but that the community opted to allow it (i.e. basically the equivalent of agreeing to unblock the puppeteer). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricky. As much as a good number of those edits are helpful, I'm a bit dubious of anybody that feels a need to keep an ongoing and secret collection of active accounts. I have a few spares, such as User:Lunaccount-l or User:Lunasock, but none are regularly active and all are very clearly linked to me. As has been pointed out, OM's alternate accounts make good, helpful edits but tend to have some problems with escalating issues too aggressively. Why the switch from Ron Duvall (talk · contribs) and Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) to Absidy (talk · contribs)? I can see an argument that blocks on Absidy and Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) might be a bit hasty, and I'm encouraged by their good edits and the fact that people are standing up to speak on their behalf, but I still find myself uncomfortable with intentional disruption and blatant sockpuppetry. If this user is to be unblocked, I'd prefer we keep them on a short leash. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no controversy: the use of new accounts to evade a block is not legitimate.

Most of the accounts listed above are just that, created while blocked. Mixing that up with a user dropping one account name to take up another, being open about it, which happened several times, is exaggerating the situation. I do know that this user, way back, told me that it was legitimate to drop an account and begin with another, that this was not sock puppetry if not intended to deceive and the first account was abandoned, not used again. Whether that was accurate or not, he told me that before there was any trouble at all. And I did read language in WP:SOCK that was readable that way. One of the problems is that this community has adopted a term to use, and uses it in a way at variance with standard usage. Sock puppetry refers to the creation of additional identities for a user which are then used to create an impression of wider support for some idea, by multiple voting -- one of the original applications -- or by holding fake conversations. This user has never done that. However, during the WP:PRX affair, he changed his account, creating a minor impression of wider support, though it was really irrelevant and had no bearing on the proposal. (The result and the controversy would have been the same without the account change, and the only real difference was that the accusation was then made that the proposal was supported by sock puppets.) Then, as a result of an SSP report and checkuser (which merely confirmed the obvious, what was already admitted -- except that I was cleared of charges that I was a sock of the same master as part of that), the SSP report deleted for privacy reasons, he changed his user name again, to Absidy. The block of Absidy had *nothing* to do with account name changes, Absidy was blocked, when we look at it closely, for being rude to an administrator. Prior to that there was action arguably worthy of warning (it was also arguable that it was legitimate, but it certainly irritated some users -- he dropped a notice advertising the startup of the proxy system on the Talk page of every administrator), for which he was, in fact warned. He had stopped, and stated no intention to continue, nor did he continue, but he was rude. And he was blocked, obviously, for that. Leading then, to all the new account changes, until Obuibo Mbstpo was opened as a method of coming back, an unblock having been negotiated. Now there are more accounts, again resulting from a continued block. The offense here, normally, would have resulted in a 24 hour block at the most. This user has absolutely no block history before the rudeness one, no history of warnings for vandalism. This would be Kurt Weber's point: if the block is not legitimate, then all the problems with socks should not be considered an additional offense. I'm not sure I agree, but it is also certainly arguable, and there seems to be some level of precedent for it. Mbstpo is, by the way, not thrilled that I'm defending him, he's really asked me to stop. But I'm not defending him, I'm proposing that we follow policy and consider the welfare of the project. Is it better to continue to block him -- based on what? -- or to allow him to contribute. What harm will be done by one, and what harm by the other? I'm not proposing one over the other at this point, I can see both sides. What I don't like is that the situation is exaggerated by some, confusing the issues. Don't consider what's good for Mbstpo, that's his job. Consider what's good for the project.--Abd (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock?

Per this diff, I would favour a trial unblocking. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to help the encyclopaedia, and the hoax article and marriage proposal edit stand out as isolated incidents against a backdrop of policy debate and parliamentary procedure articles. I have no objection to his return to policy pages (as long as he continues to be a significant mainspace contributor), but he seems to be indicating that he doesn't even plan on doing this. I find his handling of this situation as regrettable as most of you likely do, but blocks are preventative and I no longer see what damage this one is preventing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to follow the lead of users more familiar with this user (if I've run across or dealt with them, previously, I don't recall it). As mentioned above, there are some points in their favor, and others that give me pause. I'm not happy keeping him blocked forever, given the helpful contributions balanced against what I hope is a mere indiscretion, and could probably support a "short leash" unblock (or block reduction) on that basis. Just so long as we keep a close eye on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to the unblock. This user is obviously easy to spot, which self-limits the damage they can cause, when they act up. Since he's making decent content contribs and others (myself included) are monitoring it, I'd say its worth another shot. Just whoever unblocks, please please leave a big link to WP:SOCK on the unblock message. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get why an editor who fabricates a source should be welcome here ever again. But as long as people are following him around, reverting anything cannot personally verify, maybe it's OK. Still, it seems like a lot of work just to accommodate one problem editor. Can we at least keep him to one account, and put a note on it saying "Attention all editors, this is a known hoaxer. If you see something suspicious, revert it until it's verified independently". Friday (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that -- with a very short period of exception, where he -- with little apparent reason -- made one account change, then made one more under some pressure, again without any necessity that we could see, but people do have their own reasons, he has only created new accounts (1) after spiking the password on the old account, apparently in all cases, so creating a new account requires the least administrative hassle, and (2) during periods when he has been blocked. If he edited IP during that period (has done a very few edits that way), he'd be making more work, and, since he often edits from a library, uninvolved users could be blocked. So he registers an new account for various purposes, and he hasn't been disruptive with these, beyond the disruption from the simple fact of block evasion (which includes accounts created for totally legitimate purposes, such as commenting on his prior Talk page, which were blocked anyway when identified). I would at this point ask him to pick an account name that he will keep and be permanently satisfied with. Alternatively, he can "disappear," and he knows how to do that, and come back after the necessary pause. That might be technically block evasion, except that WP:SOCK almost goes as far as to recommend it. This might be moot if he has actively chosen the new name mentioned above. We only go after those new accounts if they attract attention for disruption, and even then it can be difficult to connect them. In any case, I don't see any actual opposition to blocking, but only some minor level of puzzlement, which is to be expected in a case like this. I haven't see the material referenced above yet, I'll look at it and comment there. I hoping this resolves the wikifuss, and I'll do what I can to keep this user on track. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no actual objections - although plenty of reluctance - above, I've unblocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna be keeping an eye on this user then, because I'm uncomfortable with the unblock myself. Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell this humble non-administrator (i.e. me) whether it is now ok to restore edits that were made by the editor in question while he was blocked? Regardless of which name he was using at the time? I'd like a clear, definitive, unanimous answer, otherwise I will just leave it alone -- which would be unfortunate, especially with regard to Template:Cite parl, which got broken in the midst of all of this. Or, one of you admins can fix it, and restore the other constructive edits that were reverted. Neutron (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually okay to do so whether or not the user is unblocked, as long as you're doing so edit by edit (i.e. "I'm re-doing this edit because it was a good one") and not wholesale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was a little confused about that, given the unresolved exchange between two admins here. Neutron (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it okay to restore them, but it was absolutely not okay to have reverted them in the first place (I know you're not the one who did this--Frederick Day was, and he has totally ignored me every time I've pointed this out to him). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's because like me - fred thinks you are a bit of a bed-wetting cunt? --87.113.64.63 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ShieldDane (again)

For the final result see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#Igniateff_is_Joshuarooney where Iniateff is confirmed as a sock of Joshuarooney. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This needs a breather. Users need to avoid each other for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This user managed to escape a perminant block after being involved in a lenghtly dispute which resulted in the ironic blocking of the person who started the debate, anyway, this user has continued to troll ([25]) and act in a very incivil manner towards me after I investigated and spoke to him about his actions ([26]). Could an admin take a look at the situation? Thanks, Igniateff (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He said one word in that diff, where he's simply saying that the claims for which he was blocked when he'd only just arrived on wiki that he was a sockpuppet, were proven by checkuser to be entirely false. Have you discussed this most recent what-you-view-to be-trolling with him on his talk page before coming here and have you made sure he had viewed any comment placed there before coming here? Unless you communicate with him that you object to this one word, he cannot completely know. If you said so on his talk page, made sure he had read it because he replied, and then he did it again, at that point he would be worth contacting ANI again about, until then, he's not. And he has a point that those who accused him of being a sockpuppet were conclusively proven wrong. But he can't know that you are so aggrieved by one word to be able to make amends unless you contact him about this one word, in line with the dispute resolution process. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and he's not even writing directly to you there, he's merely on the checkuser page about him which was proven false. So how can you be sure he's "trolling" you when he's not even on your talk page or anything, he's on a page about him, which was proven false, and that's why he was unblocked as any block was due to that misapprehension that he was a sock, of which he was cleared. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the situation, and I am not certain you have any right to comment. This situation is being dealt with, you being in it is only going to make things harder. Igniateff (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your second diff mentioned earlier. Not sure if it was there before, I assume so. I aggree that he was in the wrong in his reply to you on his talk page. He is a wind-up merchant, however for one who's only been here a short time he's also written a couple of articles. Yes I am quite aware of the previous situation. Sorry if I got you wrong, however this is a page where all can comment. special, random, Merkinsmum 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused how the 'owned' even effected you? Do you just search for things you can complain about? Or things you can assert your authority on? You came to my talk page, 5 days after i posted that and told me to cease from posting there...did it seem like i intended to post anymore there? Was there anymore there for me to post on? I mean, it was all over, the pan was cooled, we were moving on..and then you just show up and tell me to stop doing something I am not really doing, for the sake of telling me to stop doing something? Perhaps I was 'uncivil' to you, when you came to my page to tell me to stop doing something i was not 'continuing to do', but just because you used pretty flower words, doesn't mean you weren't being just as rude. There were plenty of admins involved in that issue, and they let sleeping dogs lie, when they had full authority to comment. But you, hero of the forgotten, need to come shove your opinion in my face on something that's said and done. ShieldDane (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is this labeled "Again"? Like I am a repeat offender causing a ruckus? There was no first Ani about me. There was one about Tharkun, which was high-jacked by a user that was able to trick the admins into blocking us. However, none about me. But sure, lets make your argument look better by hinting at that which is false. ShieldDane (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, it looks to me like this person is a pretty new user, himself. He shows up after the altercation that Thark/myself and various admins had, in the course of which two members were blocked. I'd be willing to bet 7 hard dollars that this kid is infact one of the blocked users, returned to stir things up more. And you admins just eat it all up. ShieldDane (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how my IP address records an adress in portsmouth, and their IP's are both for an address in london! What now? Igniateff (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Janneman

Resolved

 – User warned, nothing more enwiki can do about this

personal attack. abf /talk to me/ 11:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you bring a Commons dispute to enwiki in the first place? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Jimbo does not listen to his uder-page on commons mostly i told him here. abf /talk to me/ 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep commons issues on commons, nothing can be done here, sorry. Igniateff (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but he called some commons sysops 'dunce', and i do not accept that nothing is done only because its claimed as an 'commons issue'. He called us 'dunces' in en, i cant block in commons for it. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We cant do anything here if the incident happened on commons, use dispute resolution on commons please/. Igniateff (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review our blocking policy. We don't make punitive blocks and you being a commons admin makes no difference. You could have e-mailed Jimbo rather than bring your dispute here. If the admins here are to deal with every off-enwiki dispute that is brought here because you use Jimbo's talk page we wouldn't have time for our own problems. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I come to think of it, the prospect of being banned from a project that purges its language of its finest idiomatic expressions, nevermind their pedigree, seems pretty attractive; especially if the ban comes with such a prefab rebuke reminding me that mine is not to reason why, but to go back to work on the content chain-gang. Please make that indefinite for me, no ice, thanks. --Janneman (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. Marked as resolved since this is generating more heat than light now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kilts Across Canada

I'd like some independent admins to look into this. Calton marked the page for deletion as spam, and I denied that request from him twice, and he added it again a third time and it was deleted by another admin. I'm not all that concerned about actually restoring the page, but to me it looked like someone describing with addish tones a venture that was personal: the kind of thing we would normally allow on User pages. I'd like feedback on two things. (1) When should we consider user pages spam? People are allowed some leeway on their user pages, and it seems to me that, say, promoting themselves would be okay (within reason) while promoting a company or external venture would not be reasonable. And (2) is Calton's behavior reasonable here? Shouldn't one not re-add a speedy deletion tag when one's own request has been declined? Or at least, not twice? Mangojuice^talk 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a role account, pure and simple, used for promotional purposes and blocked as such. That makes it a) not an individual's account, which violates policy; and b) spam, which violates policy. A simple glance at the edit history of WP:UAA should remove any doubt about both the correctness of tagging obvious spam, the practice of blocking role/spam accounts, and the scale of the problem.

It's fairly obvious, and given that someone disagreed with the logic above by deleting it, I'd say, yeah, adding back a tag correctly placed and removed in violation of applicable policy is perfectly okay. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that "shopping" (not exactly forum-shopping, but it's similar) is perfectly acceptable behavior? Keep trying until you can find someone willing to delete it? —Random832 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Perhaps you should deal with what I actually wrote instead of making stuff up. Works better that way. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton -- that is what you did in this instance, and you are saying that you think it's okay. When would you have stopped? If another admin also turned down the request? If two other admins? Never? Mangojuice^talk 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When would YOU have stopped?: might I point out that you didn't bother waiting for a second opinion yourself, but simply reverted again? (Which makes your claim, shall we say, a little hypocritical?) That you didn't bother to note that the editor had already been blocked for having an inappropriate name? That you didn't follow the obvious and common-sense policy, and when you didn't get your way, you came here to complain about it? My hands are clean, whatever spin you try to put on it or ridiculous strawmen arguments you try to erect.

Spam gets nuked. Spammers get blocked. It's that simple. Passing out "Get Out of Jail Free" cards is against policy and against common sense. --Calton | Talk 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. I have no beef with wikipedians using thier talk page as a blog or whatever. But when someone comes here without the intention of writing an encylopedia and only to promote themselves in someway I say delete delete delete, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can I nominate this for the "most fatuous argument of the week" award? Guy (Help!) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the horror of it all. Someone has used a Wikipedia user page to raise money for sick children. Isn't behaviour like this contrary to consensus mores? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Units and Years

This User:Lightmouse "Contributions" has taken it upon himself to remove brackets from years while adding metric units. I'm not sure what the policy is, but I don't think he should be doing this unilaterally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was already blocked once for this activity [27] and is continuing on with it today despite my warning to him on his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's going through them rapidly in some kind of alpha sequence, so I'm guessing he's running a robot program of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop for now. If he doesn't I'll block and revert. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's using AWB, which I suspect is unattended, but I don't know. I've reverted a handful of his entries on subjects I work with. The rest of them, you can have. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's watching it, and has issued you and me both a defiant comment. [28] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe cxoncensus has changed I dunno. He's stopped the editing for now which is a good sign. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's actually been on this little crusade (and no other editing) since at least late February, and has changed thousands of them. What caught my attention was that he was changing items to plain years that previously had the "year in baseball" template. That is certainly not with consensus, as there was a discussion a few weeks back about that template, on the WP:Baseball talk page, and not about dropping it, only about changing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some links to show us what you are talking about. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is the "contributions", in the first sentence I wrote in this section. Do "older 500" repeatedly and you'll see it goes on and on. I quit after it got to late February. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean the Baseball Year template discussion, which is this: [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Early on in his crusade, he was also changing a bunch of templates. I don't know what that's about. I'm going to have to let the experts sort this out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with what he's doing? It looks to me like he's just bringing things in line with the MOS. Standalone years are not supposed to be linked. Only years that are part of dates should be linked, to enable the autoformatting. What's the point of linking a standalone year? -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:EGG: "Years should not be linked to articles, such as 2003 in music or 1985 in film, especially when part of a date." -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the spot where it actually says that. I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a link to the spot where it actually says that. It's very last sentence under the section "Intuitiveness", which is the section directly linked to by WP:EGG. TomTheHand (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From my knowledge of the discussions that went on to introduce that change, it's not representative of consensus. Consensus included an exception to dates in infoboxes and other places where it was useful to have information in a restricted space. Of course, consensus may have changed as I don't watch the discussions religiously... GDallimore (Talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I'll mention that I've just amended WP:EGG per the consensus in the 90th archive in Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The text that was there had been introduced without discussion that I could see and has been questioned on the talk page. Whether my bold edit will be reverted or not is yet to be seen... GDallimore (Talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's now had his AWB authority suspended, pending further discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of his edits. As far as I can see, the problem is lack of attention to which dates he's changing. I don't think any thought has been given to whether the year being linked to is relevant to the context - how can it be at the rate he's going? It's tricky to find exactly what the consensus is on some of these issues, too, but I've seen some edits which are not based on consensus that I can tell. Most of the edits he's made, though, look to be appropriate.

I suspect he's going for a slash and burn type approach: 99% of the linked dates shouldn't be, so I'll remove all of them and let individual editors re-introduce the ones that should be there. GDallimore (Talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is bound to upset people. I wish he's come here and talk about it too. It's always difficult clearling a matter up when someone is uncommunucative. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

His defiant attitude continues, in deleting his talk page comments and insisting that it be discussed where he wants it discussed, as well as lecturing us. [30] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not lecturing anyone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The patronizing comment "...you may not feel comfortable with what I say about it. There are plenty of other editors there that have extensive experience with this issue..." constitutes lecturing. However, I don't really care about this issue personally. I just see a user who has taken it upon himself to make massive changes without asking anyone first... particularly the folks working on WP:Baseball. If they don't care, then that's fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But he does ask first. Lightmouse is a regular visitor to the MOSNUM talk page. He gains consensus there in a polite and respectful manner, and then implements that consensus. I have never witnessed any incivility or intransigence from him. Please respect that. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe today is a first, then. And did he ask anyone on WP:Baseball? Or did he just assume everyone on that project had read something about it where he expected them to read it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's exactly right; if you have a problem with the MOS, the place to discuss it is at the MOS talk page, not at that of an individual editor. -- Zsero (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When an incident is posted, he needs to talk about it on the incident page. Refusal to cooperate takes a user down a path that will eventually lead to being banned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone measure the thickness of the exterior walls in the W. H. Stark House to see if they're exactly 254 millimeters? I think we need to send someone to Orange, Texas with a calipers to check that measurement to the millimeter. Ten inches, plus or minus one inch, implies a certain level of accuracy, whereas 254 millimeters, plus or minus one millimeter, implies a much finer level of accuracy. I just hope masons working in 1894 were precise enough to work to the millimeter. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with converting units. However the alternative is that a large fraction of people will not understand the measurement. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the solution to that one was simple. The thickness of the walls should be expressed in cm, not mm. Fixed. -- Zsero (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As for links inside of succession boxes, WP:SBSGUIDE#B. Years and dates specifies that these should not be wikified unless they are pointing to an article of direct topical interest. So, removing general links to years inside of succession boxes is correct. Removing a piped link link to, let's say, the 1985 all-star game in a succession box about the host of the 1985 all-star game would be incorrect. Also note that there should not be years in the before and after portion of the succession boxes, only the middle column (the part specified in the "years" parameter). Gwguffey (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on these particular edits, but I do have one on the editor Lightmouse. He uses a semi-automated procedure to speed up a number of improvements to WP, in my experience always following established guidelines. Like you and me he sometimes makes mistakes. When these are brought to his attention he responds quickly and effectively, modifying the software he uses where that is found to be necessary. He is not defiant and he is not on a crusade. Be civil to him and he will reciprocate. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Thunderbird2 in that regardless of the intricacies of the above argument/discussion, Lightmouse is a valued member of the Project and his contributions in providing metrics/imperial measures links have been very useful to developing WP:Aviation Project articles. Would it be perverse to say, Calm Down? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

I'll repeat that he's only "mostly" following established guidelines because 99% of the wikilinking of years on WP is innapropriate. There is no possibility that he's checking every year he's de-linked to see whether or not it is useful in context. As Theresa Knott has pointed out, this is bound to get people riled. Personally, I think there's no problem in his continuing what he's doing provided that his edit summaries provide a bit more detail - letting people know where to find the relevant guideline to explain his actions, for example, would be a huge step forward rather than just a terse "dates/units with AWB". GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to discern any true civility in the user Lightmouse. It's "his way or the highway". That kind of approach, which reminds me of User:Tecmobowl, can catch up eventually. But if the WP:Baseball folks are OK with this, then that's fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I see Lightmouse is not removing pipes (i.e. changing [[1991 All Star Game|1991]] to [[1991 All Star Game]] - he is just removing brackets (i.e. [[1991]] to 1991). Removing piping I understand. Removing brackets, I don't understand. Kingturtle (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM

EBDCM (talk · contribs) has been continuing, in part, the edits of 64.25.184.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP blocked for 8RR on Chiropractic. When I placed a 3RR warning, as he clearly made 2 reverts after the IP was blocked, noting that if he's the IP, he's violated WP:SOCK, he responded with a legal threat. As this is also a content dispute on Chiropractic, I don't think I can block. Under the circumstances, I also filed an WP:RFCU. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reverted edit was first made by doctorisin and I concurred with it. Sockpuppet accusations are completely bogus and this is seems to part of a continuing smear campaign against me. The reverted material was properly referenced and was attributed to the WHO. I have asked Arthur Rubin to retract accusations of sockpuppetry which he has failed to do so. Also, Arthur is citing vandalism by the anon user which does not appear to be the case. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have waited upon the results of the CheckUser request, before considering bringing it here. Admins are unlikely to anticipate the result. A negative CU result would mean that your suggestions are unfounded, and a positive would likely be handled by the CU or upon their comments there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is more WP:BITE as an experienced user is trying to discredit my character. Also, I have not made any reverts after anon did, the history clearly shows DoctorIsIn made the revert and I agree with it. It seems to me that Arthur Rubin is trying to expedite a process against me and also displays a lack of good faith on his part. EBDCM (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think DoctorIsIn is the IP. He did revert, but I agree that it's to the last stable version. EBDCM's reverts, on the other hand, reverts to material added by the IP. I think it might be considered WP:POINTy for me to add the Doctor to the RFCU, although I have no objection if EBDCM does.

Yes, you did revert User:Eubulides, in part, to material added by the IP which was not in the version reverted to be User:DoctorIsIn.

It's still a legal threat. It seems likely that if RFCU determines the allegation is unfounded, and if I then withdraw the accusation, he would withdraw the threat, but there are no guarantees. I obviously can't take action against what I see as a clear WP:LEGAL violation, nor can I revert EBDCM, as I used up 3 reverts reverting the IP, as have most editors who have expressed a pro-science opinion on Chiropractic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest DoctorIsIn was the IP. Stop misrepresenting my statement. Also, it should be noted that yourself, orangemarlin, quack guru (who is supposed to be under 1RR) redrocket and others cited my edits as vandalism when it was a direct quote from the WHO Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Chiropractic. I am completely pro-science and the references I provided were all scientific. I'm an evidence-based practitioner, Arthur Rubin and one of my goals is to improve the scientific and referencing standard at chiropractic. EBDCM (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU was declined, with the reviewer citing privacy concerns and WP:DUCK. Further action here may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that further action is needed. We have a case that clearly seems to be misuse of some unknown IP to evade a block done by a user (User:EBDCM) who is intensively involved in edit warring, and who has (as User:EBDCM) just avoided an indef block. The blocked IP is located on practically the same street as another IP (I know it) that EBDCM has used, so the evidence is pretty strong. No matter how much one enlarges the images of the two IP location pictures, the closer on the same street they appear to be. Where should this information be posted? -- Fyslee / talk 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Fyslee? I am not using any sock puppet accounts and it seems that unfortunately you have reverted back to your previous ways. EBDCM (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

← I've semi-protected the page for 3 weeks given edit-warring and the question of whether these IP's might be socks. That should solve the immediate problem of editors potentially logging out to continue edit-warring. I'm too burned out on this particular issue at present to dig deeper and start applying the DUCK test to those IP edits, so maybe we can declare an amnesty or another admin can try to match them up. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I still don't understand how Arthur Rubin and OrangeMarlin claimed that my original edits in question were vandalism when it should be fairly obvious that they were not. Anyways, sorry you had to get dragged into this debacle, MastCell. EBDCM (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little upset by that closure, as both Orangemarlin and I have used up 3RR in reverting the anon, but I suppose it will have to do. Perhaps propose a modification to WP:3RR that reversions of edits found to be in violation of WP:3RR no longer count as reversions for the purpose of 3RR? (Probably no good, as it's too easily WP:GAMEd.) In any case, a reasonable start of a resolution. And I wasn't claiming EBDCM's edits were vandalism, just that they are reversions, and are not reversions of vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a closure, necessarily - I think semi-protection is a good start, but I would welcome anyone with more stamina than I to look into the issue of whether there was actual sockpuppetry, 3RR breaches, or other offenses here. I'm not commenting on those issues, nor closing this thread, because I haven't looked into them. The semi-protection is designed as a general, no-fault measure, but that doesn't have to be the only outcome. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have misinterpreted your action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that EBDCM keeps accusing me of calling his edits vandalism, since I've never reverted his edits. But I did revert a bunch of edits from some anonymous IP, and did accuse him of 3RR vandalism. Strange coincidence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[31] Here is some background information. There are WP:COPYVIO concerns[32] about the recent text EBDCM added to the Chiropractic article.[33] QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh, hello, it's in the talk history for all to see. I have not made any personal attacks OrangeMarlin, but perhaps you can explain to MastCell why you claimed in your edit that you were reverting vandalism. DoctorisIn also reverted the said edit as did I. EBDCM (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this back on track. EBDCM is throwing around straw men diversionary ideas about "vandalism" and "anti-science" accusations. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of using an IP to evade a block, and continued edit warring. It's about the same bad behavior that got you blocked, then indef blocked. You returned and violated the agreement that got you unblocked. That is an aggravating circumstance. -- Fyslee / talk 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<RI> and EC. I hate getting involved with this stuff, but here you go EBDCM. Here is your false allegation that is both uncivil and a personal attack. This is my reply which clearly states that I have never reverted anything you've written, nor did I call anything that I reverted as "vandalism." I would ask that EBDCM (talk · contribs) be blocked for an extended period of time for personal attacks, threats against me| and legal threats here along with claiming that Fyslee sent an email to Arthur Rubin, which AR specifically denies happening here. Why do we tolerate this crap? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, hello? Did no one think of checking the IP with WHOIS? Because it geolocates to Cochrane, Ontario...and EBDCM has an "I live in Canada" userbox on his userpage. Quack, surely? Reading what Fyslee has posted above, this has to be quack. Not only that: EBDCM looks like a classic disruptive SPA - does he ever edit anything other than Chiropractic and closely related articles? Moreschi (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting tired of this charade and EBDCM's charging me of making false allegations. Here is some evidence that even makes a check user superfluous. Anyone can use this very precise IP address locator, open several windows with it, and then in each window type in one of the different IP addresses below. Then compare those windows. Even zoom in and you'll find a couple that place him on the same street! What an incredible coincidence....NOT. With this kind of evidence, any charges of making bad faith accusations are gone. Anyone with eyes would be hard put to find any other explanation than the one I have proposed - using an IP to evade a block to continue edit warring, in violation of a recent agreement that got an indef block lifted.

Here is the evidence:

As some here may know from this and later threads, EBDCM has serious issues, including edit warring, incivility, ownership, and bulldozing down any opposition.

One of his IPs has been blocked for 24 hours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.25.184.27

(Here's another of his IPs located in exactly the same location,]): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.101.95.220

but he glibly continued to edit as EBDCM.

Here's another IP he uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.101.89.150

Since he obviously misused some unknown IP to evade a block to continue bad behavior, a check user is called for and his combative style needs to be reigned in. -- Fyslee / talk 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee this is a bogus accusation. I have already talked to MastCell about the old user accounts that could have been a potential conflict of interest. I have already talked about the 208 IP which is MY IP when my ACCOUNT LOGS OUT. How many times to I have to tell you this? To keep insinuating that you're blocking MY IP is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. You need to stop attacking me now, Fyslee. I did not engage in an edit war nor did I use a Sock Puppet account. You are merely trying to censor me because my views differ from yours on chiropractic. EBDCM (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Fyslee. I have not used a sock puppet. I have been attacked, been called anti-scientific, stalked by chiropractic skeptics now. This is part of a greater smear campaign against me which began earlier in the week. I have not edit warred; and know 3RR and have followed it. I have used talk almost always to gain consensus and discuss controversial changes. Your continued attacks against me now seem to be more personal than anything else. I have approached this in a civil manner and have been a good contributor to chiropractic. You are a known chiropractic skeptic who has ties to Stephen Barrett and have your very own anti-chiropractic website here. It is your very own personal interest to false alledge of edit warring and sockpuppetry and have me kicked off wikipedia. EBDCM (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Checkuser isn't effective. However, this is truly a WP:DUCK, so we should file RfSSP. Or whatever it's called. I can never remember. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested conclusion

We can deal with this here. SSP and RFCU are not needed, give the compelling nature of the evidence above. I am of a mind to block EBCDM indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry and general disruptive editing, and will do so unless consensus deems this inappropriate. Moreschi (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not used a sockpuppet and have not been a disruptived editor. I am being attacked by all sides of chiropractic skeptics now. This is extremely lamentable. EBDCM (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how the hell do you account for that fact that IP that just got blocked geolocates to your front door? Meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, it's all the same to me. Moreschi (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed with Moreschi. Basically it would also be a reinstatement of his indefinite block, especially for violating the agreement that got him unblocked. A very bad move! There are multiple valid reasons for an indef block. -- Fyslee / talk 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, obviously. Fyslee this is really a new low and I trusted you to be objective about this. Looks like Dematt had you all wrong. Why is it me being picked on when another editor with medical leanings changes all my edits gets nothing? There is some kind of conspiracy going on here; an organized attack on me by yoursef, QG, Arthur Rubin and OrangeMarlin, all noted chiropractic skeptics. EBDCM (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I repeat. How the hell do you account for that fact that IP that just got blocked geolocates to your front door? Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Organized attack???? Huh? Until about 24 hours ago, I didn't even know who Arthur Rubin was? I watch nearly ever CAM article, including anything to do with Chiropractic, which mean I watch for big edits. EBDCM needs to go away from this project, because too many good editors are wasting their time with this discussion. Moreschi, do what you need to do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The last straw was the false accusations made against OM at his talk page. For too long, making specious accusations of incivility and the like has been seen as a risk-free tactic. We need to stomp some of that out. I've made a start by reinstating the indef block of User:EBDCM. As usual he can appeal, other admins are welcome to review, etc. etc. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Beat me too it. Disruptive socking, personal attacks, tendentious editing, POV-pushing, the lot. No reason to unblock here. Moreschi (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A few items; I was aware of this named account, as EBDCM states above, and this was not used abusively. In fact, I think we should probably refactor it in the interest of privacy. The 208 IP, admittedly that of EBDCM, geolocates to Timmins while the other geolocates to Cochrane. According to Wikipedia, these are about a 1-hour drive apart. I don't have enough technical knowledge of geolocation of IP's to know how reliable these locations are. I have, in the past, advocated for cutting EBDCM some slack, largely because he seemed to fit the mold of experts with useful knowledge who were rough around the edges in terms of civility - that is, the type of editors we'd discussed trying to retain at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. That said, he has undeniably had major difficulties in working effectively in this environment. I'm not sure about the IP sockpuppetry issue - it seems suspicious on the face of it, but unless someone who knows more about IP geolocation thinks that two IP's located an hour apart can be the same user, I'm not completely sold. A block could be justifiable solely on grounds of disruption, personal attacks, etc. I don't oppose the block, but I'd be curious to hear what others think. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IP geolocations are iffy. They may resolve to the town where the person lives, or to a network center in the general area, or to corporate headquarters of their ISP, or somewhere else. My IP geolocates to Shelbyville, KY which is over 500 miles from here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree he qualifies as an expert we want to keep around. He advocates for a procedure that is unsupported by science or clinical studies (though I have no doubt that a large number of people use it). His edits indicate a single purpose account. He lied about me (which is the point where I invoke WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. An hour apart in Northern Ontario is easy by dog sled or snowmobile. One could be his office, and one his cabin in the woods. MC, you're getting too nice in your old age. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the disruptive editing merits a reinstatement of my original block. The possibility of IP socking can be addressed later if the account is blocked and the IPs resume the disruption. 100,000 people sharing an ISP is possible, but how many edit Wikipedia, and show an interest in the same page, and edit from the same point of view and behave alike? It sees quite possible that there is sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, take another look at my evidence. Two of his IPs (including the blocked one) are located on the same street. To really clear up any doubts, I think a check user should be run on the IPs used by EBDCM. There should be no doubt about this matter. The evidence at hand is about as strong as it gets, but a checkuser would possibly clinch the matter.

As far as expertise goes, it's always nice to have a practicing chiropractor as an editor, but this one is a green one who has a bigger opinion of his "expertise" than is warranted. Unfortunately this has contributed to a bull in a china shop attitude, where a failure to learn how to collaborate has been the rule of the day. The chiropractic article was actually a very stable and well-developed consensus article before he came on the scene. IOW, most everything he has done has potentially (and often) been against an existing consensus that was achieved by balancing things on a knifes edge and everyone basically agreeing to not touch anything without careful agreement on the talk page before making any changes at all. Then the young and inexperienced bull charged into the shop and it's been chaos ever since, with serious issues like edit warring, incivility, ownership, and bulldozing down any opposition as a consequence. I actually share his POV on some matters, but his dictatorial and uncollaborative spirit have made him more of a liability than he's worth, and I have stayed away from the article for some time, except for a few minor exceptions. -- Fyslee / talk 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Consultation on the checkuser mailing list has produced mixed results. A similar discussion last month came down mostly on the side of not confirming IPs whenever possible. I discussed this recent case there over the last few days and the consensus this time was that if an editor chooses to edit while logged out, that IP address is the equivalent of a nickname or second identity and it is the editor's own choice to do so. That being the case,  Possible, as the IP in question (64.25.184.27) is on the same /24 as an IP that EBDCM has used (infrequently) in the past. Thatcher 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Durieu 7.jpg

Resolved

 – Image restored.

There are a few problems with me putting this issue here, I know, but I am not exactly sure where else. Here's the story. That is a commons image of a nude of a young girl by Jean Louis Marie Eugène Durieu. commons:User:Zirland deleted it as "child pornography" according to the response I got on the commons pump. The reason I bring this up on AN/I is because I am unsure how to deal with Commons admins being completely overzealous and deleting images that affect EN articles. gren グレン 14:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What article does it affect here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis Marie Eugène Durieu. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That image was deleted back in June 2007. Doesn't Commons have an equivilant to deletion review? — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me stupid that an art photograph could be deleted as pornography. However in the meantime I have at least replaced the photo in our article with another nude. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

There's a small possibility that UK editors / readers could go to prison and be listed on a sex offenders register if they view that image. How does WP deal with stuff like this? (Laws in one country being stricter than where the WP servers are)Dan Beale-Cocks 22:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - pornography requires a sexual element to it. This is a photographic study. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleting admin has restored the image at Gren's request. — Edokter • Talk • 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

URL blacklist

Resolved

 – Offending site blacklisted--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard, but have thus far not experienced, that adding certain external links to a page will cause you to not be able to save the page. If this is true, I'd like to have another URL added to the list: [http:// cairns1st.blogspot.com] (DO NOT VISIT) -- has been used recently for vandalism, a "trap" site that shows a looped porn video, and makes your browser window nearly uncloseable. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hi - maybe you've got spyware, because I don't see anything wrong with it. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I doubt that. What exactly do you see when you visit the site? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:16, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Some Cairns mayor's blog.

Thursday, 20 March 2008 Off for three days break

I am heading off for a three-day break - my first in 11 weeks - after the excitement of the last few days.

I had not anticipated how much of a slice of me the various media outlets would want and the phone has been running hot. I am proud to be a role model for women, particularly young women, so have been open to all media.

I've had phone calls from as far away as Rajasthan, Vienna and Singapore and numerous email, phone and text messages including one from a young friend who is leading a walking tour on the Overland track in Tasmania. News has travelled fast. Forgive me if I have not answered yet

and it goes on. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a report at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. if you have a virus scan program post the log (or the relevent part)--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) The page is MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (or m:Spam blacklist for blacklisting on all Wikimedia projects). Hut 8.5 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no pornography on that site. I remember this happened once when I had spyware about 1 year ago - random ads were replaced by pornography. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay oops, thats my bad. No I don't have any spyware. I can tell the difference. I copied the link the vandal replaced rather than the one he replaced it with. Here's the bad link: [http: //infoslash.net]. Still advise not visiting it though. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:21, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

OK. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well since I'm not an admin, can someone add that URL please? ([http:// infoslash.net]) Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

To close it just hold 'enter' or 'return' for ages. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

... or ctrl-alt-delete. But that still doesn't address the issue of blacklisting this malicious site. Is anyone going to actually do that, or do I have to start throwing a hissy fit? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:31, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Added. Don't "live" link sites like that again, on this board!--Hu12 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay but you added the wrong one. cairns1st. blogspot.com was my mistake. The bad URL is infoslash.net. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:35, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're both added now. cairns1st. blogspot.com is okay though, can you remove it? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That video is really old - it's on homo.com which doesn't have the annoying features of infoslash. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 15:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (ec)

• For the curious, it's meatspin. Ooooooold news. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

Some jerk moved this to Global warming hoax. Could you undo it and ban the idiot? 71.174.111.245 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Already been moved back, and I believe an admin will be handling the block in a moment's time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We're keeping a eye on him. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He got blocked for vandalism / edit warring on another article. I reviewed the unblock request, but he reverted my decline of the unblock.[34] Somebody else deal with this please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With a history like that, one week was lenient - he should count himself lucky. Block reviewed, unblock firmly declined. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... 5 blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, plus several current episodes of vandalism... phony warnings ([35])... abusing the unblock templates... I hate to be the grumpy old guy in this esteemed gathering, but I'm going to extend this to 1 month - there's a lengthy pattern of problematic editing here, and the next block should almost certainly be indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Taiketsu (talk · contribs) has caused problem in Pokemon-related articles and, to a lesser extent, Yu-Gi-Oh (where he spent quite some time edit warring with me under the impression that English Wikipedia is American Wikipedia). I think we've tolerated his presence enough. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a last chance. If problems resume after the block expires, let me know or come back here and I'll extend the block to indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this block not indefinite? Raul654 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because, as I've been told elsewhere, I'm getting soft in my old age. In all seriousness, an indefinite block would certainly be justifiable, and if you want to extend it I'd be fine with that. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet on autism articles again

Reference for context:

Wrong Planet is a bulletin board/forum about Asperger syndrome.

AlexPlank (talk · contribs), aka Perl (talk · contribs) is the owner/founder (actively involved in editing that article in the past; recently, it has been edited mostly by IPs—if problems with COI persist, a CheckUser could be warranted).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph and threads on Wrong Planet advocating against Wiki's Asperger syndrome article (these are just a few, there are others):

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=883579

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=43197

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt49566.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx50638-15-0.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt53562.html

Now, to current business—Wrong Planet members editing Autism Speaks:

Autism Speaks is "a New York City-based advocacy organization, founded ... by Bob Wright, Vice Chairman of General Electric, and his wife Suzanne, to improve public awareness about autism and to promote autism research." (Through a series of mergers, I believe they are now the largest organization speaking for people with autism.)

Because some Wrong Planet members perceive Autism Speaks as "pro-cure" (which some autism activists perceive as an insult), there are numerous anti-Autism Speaks threads at the Wrong Planet bulletin board.

Recently, negative information has been added to the Autism Speaks article, sourced to the Wrong Planet bulletin board (not a reliable source).[36] [37] I've reverted;[38] Alex Plank (the owner of Wrong Planet and an experienced Wiki editor) inserts further text sourced to Wrong Planet bulletin board.[39]

A thread on Wrong Planet [40] questions whether it/they (WP/bulletin boards) are reliable sources, and Alex Plank responds with:

if sandyGeorgia is the one who reverted it, you should just revert it back to your version. She's a wikipedia troll who attempts to control articles on wikipedia. she has no authority, however. ... It was SandyGeorgia. I reverted her edit. The only way to stop her is to not let her bullying pay off. Make sure to watch the page and revert ok?

At the same time, similar issues are occurring at the Wrong Planet article. Because of past issues/arbitration with members of Wrong Planet, it would be helpful if other editors would step in to attend to the Wrong Planet disruption of the Autism Speaks article and insertion of information that is not reliably sourced. If Wrong Planet has the membership base it claims (17,000 members, although I doubt it), help will be needed on the Autism Speaks article, and I've been slandered enough on that bulletin board and would prefer not to be the person watching over the Autism Speaks article, considering past history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilco, will watch. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted and left a general note on the talk page regarding online forums as encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, [41] seems to me to require some action. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Am I reading that correctly (that he may have published confidential info that he obtained as webmaster of Wrong Planet)? I also just noticed that he said (see above), that he had reverted me, so he must be one of those IPs or other accounts ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't make out where it came from, but it's obviously grossly inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a matter for WP:OVERSIGHT to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. All the info on Wrong Planet is properly sourced. User SandyGeorgia is a disgruntled former member of the site who was banned for trolling and has an ax to grind. I do run the site and have made no claim that I am not involved with it. I don't see it as a conflict of interest because I leave my bias at the door when entering Wikipedia. Perl (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Perl, making up stories here (just after re-instating a lot of non-reliable sources just removed from the article) is not going to bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perl, SandyGeorgia is a long-standing Wikipedian of stellar reputation, whereas you have just caused me a lot of work getting your egregious privacy violations oversighted. You want to escalate this? Feel free, but I can give you a pretty confident prediction of who will win. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also a long-standing Wikipedian and have been a wikibooks administrator and am currently an administrator for another language wikipedia. I've been here much longer than SandyGeorgia and I guarantee you that no one's privacy has been violated. Perl (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, setting aside the egregious privacy violations you made of another person that were oversighted today, calling me a troll on Wrongplanet, advocating reverts of valid edits, edit warring on articles to insert information sourced to your own bulletin board (not a reliable source), COI, possible sockpuppetry, past canvassing against Wiki articles on your bulletin board, and now putting up some serious lies about me here, you've got a great reputation going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about egregious privacy violations yet that is a complete fabrication. I find that suspicious, TBH. Perl (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, JzG (and everyone else who saw the post before it was oversighted) fabricated the whole thing :-) By the way, did you obtain and post that personal information about that fellow from your position as webmaster of your bulletin board? If so, that wouldn't speak well for the value you place on your "17,000" members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you're talking about? Perl (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. All of the personal information about some fellow (since the post had to be oversighted, from memory, his name, address, school, IP addresses, e-mail addresses, and whatever else was in the oversighted link of your "egregious privacy violation" of some poor fellow's confidential information). Again, since you just posted a call to arms on WrongPlanet ("we have a problem. need major backup:"),[42] I hope you treat your bulletin board members better than that fellow was treated. Fortunately, since I'm not one, I won't have to worry about my confidential information being posted to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perl, David Gerard does not oversight edits for fun. There were five edits killed, in which you revealed, exactly as Sandy says, someone's name, email address, location, IP address and other private data, in furtherance of an apparent vendetta. As privacy violations go, it doesn't get a lot worse than that. It is also clear that your edits demonstrate a conflict of interest, and that you have used Wikipedia to further an off-wiki agenda. You have been caught bang to rights, I'm afraid, and now would be a good time to show some contrition and a commitment not to continue or repeat such behaviour. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That information was gleaned from an email sent by the individual to a public email list. No details were posted that were not publicly posted to the internet by the guy in question. Perl (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I'm sorry, but you are being sold a porky by SandyGeorgia. It may not be obvious to you - but even though she may be otherwise a good contributor to Wikipedia, her handling of this issue is laced with bias against Wrong Planet. It's not just a forum. Alex has articles as well. Just for the record, I think you'll find that Aspies for Freedom have a similar view of Autism Speaks as Wrong Planet does. And I would point out that while individual statements on a forum might not fulfill WP:RS by themselves, a collection of statements that agree with each other would be a very strong basis for a reference style comment on the article concerned. I'm pretty sure that has been done in the past.

Now maybe Perl may have a WP:COI issue re the mention of Wrong Planet. But that doesn't mean dump the whole thing. I certainly hope a blacklisting of Wrong Planet is being considered because I'll fight it straight away and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet is self-published; those views don't belong in other articles unless they are published by reliable sources, although Wrong Planet views can be stated in their own article, within policy. No porky here; Fenric (would that be Quatermass on Wrong Planet?); just Wiki policy, WP:V. (Are all 17,000 members of Wrong Planet planning to weigh in here? Fine, but that won't change Wiki policy.) Wrong Planet only marginally meets notability anyway; they have a Wiki article only because William Freund gained national attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that SandyGeorgia is a banned member of WrongPlanet (for trolling) who is engaging in ban evasion in order to post messages from the Wrong Planet forum. Her role in this is hardly that of an objective observer. Perl (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex Plank (aka WikiBot, aka Perl), I took the evening off last night to allow time for you to re-consider your wanton abandoment of the truth in this attempt to discredit me; striking untruths is the way you can retract them on Wiki and that will end the problem you are starting for yourself. Yesterday I was inclined towards making allowances for your brazen false attacks on me; today, considering you've repeated, I note that this behavior is not part of the Asperger syndrome profile to my knowledge, and there is no reason for me to make allowances a second time. Please strike the false statement to retract it;[43] I came to the situation on WrongPlanet originally by googling to find out where the canvassing on the Asperger syndrome article was coming from,[44] and that was when I discovered that I was a frequent topic of conversation there.[45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the specific issue of posting (now-oversighted) personal information by User:Perl, it's just not acceptable. Perl's defense, that "The information was gleaned from an email sent by the individual to a public email list" is hardly mitigating - regardless of what's on an public email list somewhere, the information has no place on Wikipedia. I can't speak for the community on this, necessarily, but I'd look on any further issues with inappropriate posting of personal information by this or affiliated editors very unfavorably. The other issues between SandyGeorgia and Perl are probably best pursued in dispute resolution rather than in this forum. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I believe before pursuing this further in DR, I do need to give him the chance to retract and strike the misinformation here, correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - no, I am not Quartermass from Wrong Planet. And I think you need to back off Alex, because you were indeed banned from Wrong Planet for trolling. He has nothing to withdraw from what I can tell unless I missed something completely different. And you haven't explained why Wrong Planet fails WP:RS (and I'm talking about aside from the forum - and besides, what is wrong with making a general reference to the views of a clear group of people in the one place?). I think you have just as much to explain here as you claim Alex does. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of whether Wrong Planet is a reliable source belongs on the talk page of the relevant article, or failing that, at the reliable sources noticeboard. I would urge everyone not to import outside disputes onto Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make the same point. Please take it to WP:RS/N. However, to give you a preview of what will likely be said there, I don't see that a website without any attestations to its reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, and run by non-experts, is likely to meet the requirements for reliability on an article about a medical condition. Relata refero (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with MastCell that outside disputes should not be brought to Wiki, but since I have not posted to or been banned from Wrong Planet, that information cannot be allowed to stand here on Wiki. It is now a two-fold personal attack on me on Wiki brought by Alex Plank[46] and Fenric.[47] (appended to add): Since I have no off-Wiki interaction with them, this is strictly an on-Wiki attack, furthered by them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if someone would tell me what my next step is, since it appears that Alex Plank is able to make this fraudulent claim here with impunity. I imagine this claim will play well with his membership. What is my next recourse if he can post something like this to AN/I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

edit war brewing at Main Page

There seems to be an edit war brewing over the design of the main page - Nat (talk · contribs) wants to be bold, others are suggesting discussion and it's likely that his most recent change is also going to get reverted shortly. I have no idea who is in the right, I'm frankly not interested but I'd suggest that some uninvolved admin get involved and suggest to all concerned that they discuss any major changes to main page on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Or at least work on a sandbox... -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An administrator isn't really required in this case methinks. You could be bold and make an attempt at WP:Dispute Resolution. If not you, anybody could give it a light weight start. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes, creating a subpage as a temp sandbox for experimentation might be beneficial. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

it looks exactly the same: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&undoafter=199629281&undo=199631190 compared it to current revision) nat.utoronto 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather misleading response, given the fact numerous other edits that you performed significantly altered the page's appearance. You also introduced code that hasn't been thoroughly tested to ensure compatibility with all of the major operating systems, resolutions, browsers and screen readers for people with visual impairments.

It's rather disconcerting that you were continually "fixing" your new version on the fly (both at Main Page and at various transcluded templates) instead of doing so in advance. —David Levy 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, it's a serious problem. No edits related to the Main page should be done on-the-fly, except emergency ones. El_C 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Nat's contribution log for the eight edits labeled "mfix" (including one that undid another after Nat realized that it broke the Wikipedia languages section) performed after the new code was introduced. —David Levy 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My question is why are edits even being made to the main page in the first place? I don't have the time to look at the discussion at the moment, but any changes there should be discussed in depth by multiple editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, Nat has been convinced of that. —David Levy 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IP user showing ownership tendencies

I hope that this is an appropriate place to bring this up: 124.43.130.201 has taken over editing of Nissanka Wijeyeratne‎ and Edwin Wijeyeratne‎, and has repeatedly reverted the addition of article improvement tags. Both articles are full of "peacock" language and are in dire need of some improved references and a good cleanup. I left a note on their talk page about article ownership, and left notes on the talk pages of both articles, but 124.43.130.21 has not yet tried to dicuss any of the issues, or even left so much as an edit summary for the reversions. I didn't post this at WP:AIV, because I wasn't sure if this counted as vandalism per say, but if it would be more appropriate there, please let me know. Dawn bard (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism per se, it is, however, disruptive. I would take it to WP:AN3. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a message on the user's talk page about WP:3RR and encouraged them to use edit summaries and the talk page. An administrator can take it from here if he/she feels it is necessary to intervene further. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Justpassinby

I'm requesting the assistance of an uninvolved admin with an obvious tendentious editor in the article Jon Courtney: WP:SPA Justpassinby (talk · contribs), who evidently also edits as Joncourtney (talk · contribs), 78.105.130.169 (talk · contribs) and 86.141.25.254 (talk · contribs) (see former SSP report and ongoing SSP report.) This is not an ordinary content dispute, but ongoing, immediate and active disruption. This individual has an openly stated bias against the band Pure Reason Revolution and this article, which he nominated for deletion and which I closed as keep by consensus. (I had no familiarity with the user or the article at the time.) After he left a warning on my talk page that by closing with that reading I was causing an edit war, I went to the article to see if I could prevent that. I discovered there that he seemed to object to promotional, poorly sourced text, so I revised the article in an attempt to address those concerns. Rather than appeasing him, this evidently enraged him, as he spent the next little while vandalizing the page, including this edit under his primary account and this under one of his suspected socks, evidently pretending to be the subject of the article objecting to the page. Now he is blanking sourced content under misleading edit summaries (in spite of being advised that doing so leaves the block quote without a source) and blanking neutral reliably sourced material under alleged BLP concerns. He has rejected all reasonable efforts of communication at his talk page in regards to this issue and, I note, in others--including repeated requests made there by another editor that he stop signing contributions to article space. He responds with personal attacks and accusations of bias. He refuses to avail himself of the dispute resolution methods of addressing the article which I've pointed out to him (at first he did not explain why he did not choose to propose a merge, see deletion review or go to the WP:NPOVN. Now he says it is because I am omnipotent.) He has previously been blocked for disruptive editing at the band article Pure Reason Revolution. He has also previously been reported at ANI, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An obvious problem editor, but what is it you need help with? Do you feel you're too involved in content disputes with him to block him, or do you think that another admin might have more luck than you in convincing him to abide by policies and guidelines? Because it doesn't look to me like either is true. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note this recent diff, his most recent. I'd be prepared to AGF there until he gives us evidence that doing so was unwise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for weighing in. :) He has made it plain that he does not regard me as an uninvolved administrator in his response to my warning over edit-warring on Pure Reason Revolution, here. He has already accused me of "abuse of...admin privileges" in that thread for working on the Jon Courtney article at all. Since he seems to have had a history of viewing disagreement as personal, I would prefer an uninvolved admin to issue any necessary blocks just so as not to feed his belief that he is the target of admin abuse. Anyway, I hope that the latest diff at BLP does reflect an honest change of opinion on the matter, and I'll bring it back here if disruptive behavior persists. If others feel that it would be more appropriate for me to block in that case, I will. Meanwhile, I will restore the sourced information recently removed from the article. Thanks again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression that anybody who blocks him will just be a puppet of yours or a cabalist or somesuch anyway - I'm not a big believer in letting blockees decide who's sufficiently unbiased to block them. Anyway, hopefully no block will be necessary, but keep us posted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All right. I guess assuming good faith is a mistake, then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Other admins, feel free to adjust per your best judgment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had to note how well you called that one. From the unblock request: "opinion has been swayed against me by a 'mafia' of fans of Jon Courtney". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I didn't predict that term. But I sure am a big fan of Mr. Courtney - especially Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black), Helpless, After the Gold Rush, and Like a Hurricane. No, wait, I'm thinking of Neil Young. Point being, though, that don't nobody mess with the family. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban?

←Thanks. Given this user's self-professed conflict of interest with regards to neutrality on this article and those related to Pure Reason Revolution, would it be appropriate to consider a topic ban? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is basically a single purpose account that is, in pursuing its single purpose, being tendentious and disruptive. So on the one hand, you could say "well, it's only being tendentious and disruptive in that one topic, so why not topic ban?". On the other hand, you could say "it's being tendentious and disruptive in every topic it edits; if it doesn't shape up, ban it entirely". I probably tend towards the second view - that he's on a short leash once the block expires and is getting progressively closer to an indef block - but if you think a topic ban might help, I'd probably go along with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that this has been a single purpose account. I suppose my question about a topic ban is primarily to give him another chance to demonstrate good faith if he so desires, but only on unrelated articles. I think given this user's history and how quickly the user goes from this and this to this that it's reasonable to assume the user either cannot or will not contribute constructively to those articles. Enough is enough, I think, unless the editor can demonstrate through sustained contributions elsewhere that he has some legitimate interest in content building on Wikipedia and is not just here to voice his dislike for this band. In any event, I think a short leash is a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the user's response to being blocked, I'm inclined to support a topic ban after all. I have virtually no confidence that he can be a useful contributor in that area; I suppose we might as well give him a chance to be useful elsewhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope that others will choose to weigh in here, particularly given the user's edits to his userpage while blocked in his unblock request and his subsequent note about the administrator who declined it. I see no reason to believe whatsoever that this user will contribute constructively to these articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim!‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of User:One Night In Hackney

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

Resolved

 – Blocking admin admitted he was wrong, nothing to see here, Tiptoety ^talk 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator User:Tim! has blocked for 31 hours for "abusive edit summaries".. this is a horrible block for the following reasons.

A) No warning at all on ONiH's page B) Tim! is in an edit war with One Night In Hackney already on several articles involved. (reverting sourced information and put in tags requesting sources/citation!)

One Night In Hackney has requested the unblock, but someone needs to have a word with Tim! about inappropriate use of blocking powers. SirFozzie (talk)

ONIH has now been unblocked by User:Spartaz. _GB^T/C 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And the wikidrama begins.... NOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully not. It's not like I'm asking for a desysop or something, just for Tim! to get the point about using his administrator actions properly. SirFozzie (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SF here. No need for any drama, just a recognition that this was a bad block which should not have been made and should not be repeated, then we can move on. --John (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take care of the autoblock of ONiH? I'm clueless about how to deal with that. SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on it. He needs to post the unblock-auto template, not the unblock template. I have left him the instructions on how to do so. This should be cleared up presently... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Block was wrong, unblock was right, so long as nothing else happens, it's over and done with, I think. Wizardman 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it over and done with has Tim! even acknowledged that this was an abuse of his tools, or is it just a case of he's unblocked lets leave it at that?BigDunc (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oooh, bad things. See [48] - this is not a good sign. ONIH is - ahem - undiplomatic sometimes, but it looks like he and Tim are in long-term dispute here. Please say it ain't so. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge this was a bad block and will try my best to avoid this error in future. Instead I will report conflicts to the appropriate channels to let uninvolved thirs parties resolve disputes. Tim! (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption and rulebreaking

Resolved

(I'm logged out to avoid detection - please see prior edits from this IP. sorry so vague.)

I've found a user whose disruptions and WP lawbreaking go back years and continue to this day. It's on a scale that blows the mind.

To prove the full extent, I need to refer to sites that the user posts to. Unfortnately they content is under her control and I think she'll try to hide herself. An admin told me to email an admin I trust to talk about it, but I don't know any admins. Is there anyone that could volunteer a few minutes of there time? I can give you my e-mail address first if you're afraid of spam...... Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.104.255 (talk • contribs)

Errr.. if you can't point to on-wiki evidence of wrongdoing, it seems unlikely that said wrongdoing is actually a problem. Friday (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Try emailing a member of Arbcom at the addresses given at WP:AC. Thatcher 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I recall of someone using a web site as a source; when challenged that the web site did not say what was claimed, the web site was miraculously rewritten the next day, but this would only be proveable if someone had before and after screenshots. I can see the possibility of merit to the allegation, but no way to approach it without more info. Thatcher 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi thatcher "good to see you again." I can give you more info. As much as you need. Partly, I just want to let this girl save face because the rabbit hole goes pretty far down. Partly, the extent of the violations of this person are so insane that I actually worry about retribution. How should I proceed? Do you want my email? thx 75.45.104.255 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Thatcher may be referring to the banned Ilena. In any case that was an example, but the google cache caught most of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, vague descriptions of wrong doing are hard for us to deal with. I would strongly recommend you contact ARBCOM directly as described in WP:ARBCOM if you feel that public "outing" will be a problem. This discussion gives us no help in dealing with the problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know sry. Just wanted to know what to do next. I'll email them. Thanks 75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Another pair of eyes, please

Ok, so there's a guy at WP:AN who keeps posting new sections against another editor with whom he was in a content dispute with (the page has been protected, so it's ended). The continual posting is getting disruptive, and I'm on the verge of blocking this guy. Could someone else please take a look at it? It's under the sections about "Wikipedia going topsy-turvy" at the end of the page. Thanks. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the four threads into one conversation. I think he just meant to be using bold and thought that's how it was done. Just a hunch. No comment on the validity of his/her claims, or whether he/she should/shouldn't be blocked. Just fixed his wiki markup, that's all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Don't protect the page. No need to. Every person has told him to stop, if he doesn't just ask an uninvolved admin to block him for 24 hours for disruption. Blocks are always preferred to protection when dealing with a SINGLE user problem... it is FAR less disruptive... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's Acalamari's problem. It was a good call, they were both on the verge of 3RR blocks. The other guy seems to keep wuiet about all of this, moving on, which is highly commendable, but I'll block this guy (the first one) if he continues. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting and blocking like crazy

User:Kafziel has been reverting cited/sourced/referenced edits with the reason "disruption". What's with this abuse of power?

Why did he try to delete cited informations? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odin&diff=199702012&oldid=199701728 He just locked pages so that people won't be able to add the cited facts which he does not like. Last time I read the rules, deleting cited facts is vandalism. Sysops are allowed to vandalize as they please? 64.34.179.148 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Edit warring using open proxies or zombie computers, and adding your personal opinions about how Vikings are savages and worshipped cuckolds and prostitutes is probably not a Good Thing. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. Same editing pattern as 123.19.46.241 (talk · contribs). Kafziel did a good job. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody have a talk with User:Poisongirl1912?

User talk:Poisongirl1912 is full of warnings about uploading of copyrighted images, and yet she persists. I just reverted one that was obviously a copied image, though her upload claimed to be self-created, but at any rate, it overlaid another image with the same name that was already in use. Corvus cornix_talk 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for two months. I have left a warning that her next breach of image policy will be her last here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User Spellmanloves67 is making personal attacks and being vulgar

There is an ongoing problem with Spellmanloves67 . These problems have already been reported WP:AN#Spellmanloves67, one article WebCT was locked, and Spellmanloves67 is also reversing other valid edits that I've made on other articles. One of these is for Capella University in which I updated statics.

Spellmanloves67 is now engaged in calling names talk:WebCT#Page protected and has created a vulgar page : Wikipedia:Don't be a dick.

Spellmanloves67 seems to be on some type of personal vendetta and has continually blanked his own talk pages because he has been warned many times in the past for being abusive to others: here are a few examples:

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 1]

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 2]

[| Blanked Spellman Talk Page Example 3]

I have made numerous attempts to communicate politely but he is consistently hostile. I would greatly appreciate any help. Thank you.Sxbrown (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, users are allowed to blank their own user pages anytime they would like, for any reason. Also, Spellmanloves67 did not create WP:DICK, it's been around for a while. Redrocket (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. In this case, I have tried to discuss the issue with Spellmanloves67 on his talk page but he keeps removing it. It also seems very inappropriate for Wikipedia to permit the vulgar page. Sxbrown (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. And sometimes, you just have to remind people not to be a dick. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackworm disrupting discussion pages

Blackworm (talk · contribs) has resumed his long-running campaign of soapboxing on gender-related issues, currently at at Talk:Sexism and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F and Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny. I left a warning on his talk, which was removed with the comment that it was "harrasment".

Blackworm's recent troubles include assuming bad faith when offered mediation: see User talk:Blackworm#Request_for_mediation_accepted ... but it's hard to pick out parts of Blackkworm's history in this area without being arbitrarily selective, because almost the whole of Blackworm's involvement in these issues appears to involve conflict.

The latest episode fits a long-standing pattern which is akin to trolling: trying to engage editors in wide-ranging debate by raising open-ended philosophical questions on relatively simple issues (such as the purpose of WP:SB), and then accusing others of personal attack or censorship when asked to desist.

Can this be dealt with by admin action per WP:TE and WP:DE, or is a matter for an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant discussion thread is this one[49] at talk:Wikiproject gender studies. There was an WP:AN posting about this same issue back in January where User:Pigman brought many of the same problems to community attention[50]. Since then Blackworm has continued with the same tendentious behaviour, still treating WP as a battleground and as a soapbox. These are some instances of accusations he has leveled at specific editors: Lquilter, myself and SirFozzie and Pigman--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been loosely following Blackworm's participation in discussions and work since I posted to the Admin's noticeboard in January 2008. I've hesitated to take action because his perspective and arguments run counter to my own. This has made it a little difficult for me to discern whether my motivations are purely to counter his disruptive and tendentious behaviour or to act to eliminate an opposing but entirely valid viewpoint presented in a somewhat abrasive manner. In an ideal world, I'd be entirely clear on the distinction between violations of WP policies and spirited counterargument. In this case I'm finding it difficult to sort through.

Blackworm has consistently made attempts to insist on his views in the face of the often overwhelming consensus of other experienced editors. My observation is he is determined to insert his minority views on gender/sexuality related articles by invoking WP:NPOV and claiming these views need equal representation. The problem is that he rarely offers little in the way of good WP:V and WP:RS sources to support these views. Then it comes down to him saying he thinks a perspective should be represented equally with all others, regardless of sourcing, a very problematic viewpoint for the encyclopedia.

As I noted in January, his contribs are overwhelmingly on talk pages, indicating he is more interested in discussion than actual work on the articles. Normally, this would be a commendable sign of communication and attempts to reach compromise and consensus but, generally, I've observed him to be argumentative and belligerent rather than working with others to reach solutions in conflicts.

Because of my ambivalence in this case, I'm not comfortable with personally taking action but I entirely agree with BrownHairedGirl and Cailil that Blackworm's participation is more disruptive than productive. Cheers, Pigman☿ 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again you three. I again deny BrownHairedGirls's claim of my being involved in any "campaign." I don't believe two discussion threads posted more than two months apart constitute a campaign. I can't help but perceive sexism, racism, bias and illogic in the stated aims of those WikiProjects. I'm not asserting the existence of these things, I'm relating my impressions and asking questions on those discussing pages that will hopefully allow me to understand that the projects are not sexist, etc. This is made difficult by a few editors who pounce on me and demand that I go away for asking such questions.

I strongly deny assuming bad faith with respect to the mediation I'm involved with (in fact I explicitly deny it in the section linked above), and I object to the accusation, especially considering this mediation is currently active and ongoing and the accusation pollutes it. If I was assuming bad faith in mediation, I would guess that I would have been told by now by the mediator. Since this is not the case, I demand you keep your speculation and bad faith accusations to yourself.

I follow the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. I am sorry if this causes me to enter into disputes in the gender-related articles that you edit. I consistently have my position misrepresented, however, most recently when BrownHairedGirl asserted that I was demanding equal representation for sexism against men and women on the sexism article, when really the only thing I said was a denial of the original poster's assertion that the article currently deals more with misandry than misogyny. Note that in Talk:Sexism, BrownHairedGirl made an arguably soapboxing speech alluding to women and the right to vote, and women in business, and when I responded with an example of what I believe to be sexism, accused me of soapboxing and WP:OR. The claims were referenced, only the conclusion of sexism was arguably WP:SYN -- but this hostile, vehement attack seems completely misplaced given that the entire sexism article contains no cites and references! Anyway, I'm glad to further discuss that, but then BrownHairedGirl demands my silence at the end of every detailed reply to my posts, insisting on the last word. Fine.

If I am blunt, and (sometimes) steadfast in my position with regard to article content even in the face of outnumbered opposition, that is no different from the editors I have been involved in discussions and disputes with, especially in circumcision and circumcision-related articles, which are dominated by one particular editor. Perhaps it's the behaviour that I have learned "works." The important thing is, I don't force my view into articles, I respond politely and with good faith in disputes (not immediately jumping to claim bad faith as is the case here), and I abide by consensus. I do let my view be heard, however; and my views sometimes seem to upset those who disagree with me as much as their views upset me. I don't see that as abnormal in dealing with these controversial subjects.

I believe that most readers would agree that the questions I ask on the two WikiProject Talk pages are not open ended nor philosophical. I am concerned with them because they are the only places in official Wikipedia space, as far as I know, that specifically call for actively countering the points of view of specific racial and gender groups which they list. I have yet to be convinced there is a sound basis for these actions, and thus have taken my concerns to the project members in what I believe is a respectful way. Many editors have responded with respect and reciprocated good faith; others, such as Cailil and BrownHairedGirl, immediately respond with personal attacks, failures to assume good faith, and demands for silence backed by threats of administrative action.

I want to specifically thank Pigman for his insightful post above. Again, however, I deny that I am demanding equal representation for minority points of view, and strongly request evidence for that claim. I am demanding their representation in areas I feel the majority view is presented as fact, or the minority view is misrepresented or presented as fringe, per WP:NPOV. It may surprise you to learn that I don't even share some of these minority views personally, and have been commended on my neutrality and objectivity both here and in my real-life interactions with others.

Remember, it takes two to have an argument. I again invite the neutral reader to look at my recent contributions, read the talk pages I'm involved in, read the mediation I'm involved in, and above all not to simply read selected contributions referenced by my longtime critics here, along with their commentary and often improper interpretation of those contributions. Blackworm (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pigman. I brought this here because I disagree with Blackworm on most (but not all) of the substantial points he raises, and because of that I don't feel comfortable acting alone.

The overall pattern I see is of someone who is looking for things to argue about, rather than for ways to improve the encyclopedia. His contributions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F is based on nit-picking about the definition of the word "systemic". Encarta's definition is "1. of system: relating to or affecting a system as a whole", which reflects the usage at WP:CSB, but whatever the merits either way of the definitional argument, what difference does it make? WP:CSB identifies an persistent imbalance in coverage, notes that it reflects the interests of contributors, and sets out to redress the imbalance in coverage.

At Talk:Sexism, Blackworm's opening contribution included the assertion that "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress": that's an attack on other editors, and an expression of Blackworm's views on the subject of sexism (which is soapboxing). I have challenged Blackworm to start provide references for the inclusion of material which reflects his understanding of the subject, and I'll await the response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also a relevant edit summary:"How strange that a member of Wikiproject: Gender Studies, a group with a goal to eliminate systemic gender bias, would add "women's rights" but not "men's rights." Hmmmm"[51] - which responded to USer:Grrrlriot's addition of Women's rights and Equal rights to Right. Blackworm's summary is an allegation of deliberate omission of men's rights by Grrrlriot which is an assumption of bad faith. Blackworm's claims that pages have been "hijacked by feminists and profeminists" are a very old problem[52][53]. There is also his altercation with myself at talk:feminism (Talk:Feminism#Persons_of_interest) which is a continuation of the same issue to teh present.

I do think it would be helpful if some outside sysops would review this issue in general - I personally am happy to have my behaviour examined and I'm sure everyone else would be too. Blackworm has made a number of serious accusations about a large number of editors - but has provided no proof of these allegations--Cailil ^talk 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I again deny your accusations. In the first contribution you reference, there is no allegation of deliberate omission. The other contributions you reference are over a year old. I claimed that one page (not pages) was "hijacked," and the claim was misplaced and inappropriate, although echoed by others in that discussion at the time. Blackworm (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.] You don't seem to be awaiting a response, if you're simultaneously demanding my silence. I am quoted out of context above, and I invite the reader to read the post that prompted that response, which said: Yes, some editors are so concerned that "feminists" or "anti-male editors" will try to ruin wikipedia that they go overboard in requiring "equal treatment"; we end up with what is clearly a disproportionate emphasis on misandry etc. Is that not an attack on editors? Why did you jump on my apparent attack on editors, but not on Lquilter's?

I don't dispute the meaning of "systemic." I question the assertion that systemic bias exists here and must be countered. Again, I dispute that there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup of a group of editors, as these projects seem to assert. If that were true, what is stopping one from asserting "systemic bias" in any group of editors (e.g. WP:GS) based on their demographic makeup, or indeed any particular editor on the basis of their gender and race? It seems to me like a tolerated failure to WP:AGF on a grand scale. Also, some editors involved in those projects routinely interchangeably use the word "systematic" to describe the bias, which carries a notion of planning and intent (1. done methodically: carried out in a methodical and organized manner). Indeed, the WP:GS page said "systematic" until I changed it, a change which persists to this day. Are the majority of editors inserting bias in a methodical and organized manner? Can you see how a devotee of WP:AGF might object to this apparent assertion of two WikiProjects? In any case, I've said what I needed to say on this; and until someone is able to answer the questions I posed on the two WikiProjects' discussion pages, I have nothing to add to them. Blackworm (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm's conduct shows many of the classic techniques of trolling:

Playing word games

• You say "I don't dispute the meaning of "systemic."" ... but that's exactly what you did here when you cited a selective list of definitions (culled not from a dictionary, but from a wikipedia disambiguation page, which is a navigational tool not a list of definitions).

Using straw man arguments

• You say that you "dispute that there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup" ... but I have seen no claim by anyone except you that there "must automatically" be any such thing. What is noted at WP:CSB is that there a bias exists; there is no claim that that it "must automatically exist"

Misrepresenting others

• Blackworm says that I "made an arguably soapboxing speech alluding to women and the right to vote, and women in business". Wrong: you raised at Talk:Sexism an allegation of "imbalanced coverage", to which I responded with to an example of the effects of sexism, and asked for counter-examples.

Misrepresenting his own conduct;

• Blackworm claims above

  "I consistently have my position misrepresented, however, most recently when BrownHairedGirl asserted that I was demanding equal representation for sexism against men and women on the sexism article, when really the only thing I said was a denial of the original poster's assertion that the article currently deals more with misandry than misogyny."

  Blackwood did indeed correct the original poster as he claims, but he completed that post by a comment which could be read either as general soapboxing or as an attack on contributors to the article "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress"

Claiming different objectives to those actually purused

• Blackworm claims above that he is "blunt, and (sometimes) steadfast in my position with regard to article content". But a quick examination of Blackworm's contributions at WP:CSB shows nothing about content, and at Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny Blackworm has reacted angrily to repeated suggestions that he start providing references to support the addition of content he considers appropriate.

This has been ongoing for months. Blackworms notes "Perhaps it's the behaviour that I have learned "works."" Perhaps; and if so, it's time to put a stop to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is my posting?

Resolved

 – Question was answered. It's in the archive

I posted a thread here on this page on March 15 or so (I believe) entitled "Abuse by an Admin" (or some such). Where did that disappear to? Why did it disappear? And where is it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

It was posted on March 15, and it was titled "Abusive Administrator". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Your thread is archived here. There seemed to be a consensus that no admin abuse actually occured. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, an admin can manipulate policy as fits his personal agenda ... disregard the concept of consensus ... and that's not admin abuse - correct? Interesting. So, if that is not considered "abuse" by Wikipedia, ummmmm ... "standards" ... then what would constitute admin abuse? Dying to hear this one. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

How about blocking Joseph A. Spadaro for starting this thread? That's the best example I can think of. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think an admin incorrectly closed an Afd, the proper venue for review is WP:DRV. Is it there? I don't see it. If you think an admin is abusing powers, the correct action is a request for comment. If the latter fails, the option for Arbitration arises. All these are set out. Whinging on outside of procedure, however strongly you feel, is not. You know your options. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu is exactly correct. However, welcome as you are to investigate the possibilities of opening an RfC or going to Arbitration, you should do so under no false pretenses. The issue you brought forth was not admin abuse. It was not abuse of any variety. At best, it was a good judgement call; at worst, it was a mistake made in good faith that happened to not be in line with your own opinion on the subject. That should be the end of it. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. #1. Why was I sent to this page? And, more importantly, #2 ... do you realize that this exact quote is at the top of this page: "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." Yes, I am border-line retarded (unlike you guys). So, what exactly do those quoted words mean? Help me understand, oh Great and Mighty ones. Thanks so much! You guys are great! Unreal ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Coming to this page was the right thing to do. You asked what could be done about the admin abuse, and were subsequently told that it was not in fact abuse of any sort. That was the discussion: you asked, and several people chimed in to answer. If you are looking for a more long-winded approach to the situation, you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page, however the consensus here is that the matter is "closed", so it probably doesn't make sense to have any further protracted discussion on the AN/I page. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) For what it's worth ... this .... ummmmm .... "community" (ya, right) is among the most un-helpful I have ever known. Just so you know. (2) When I ask how is this not admin abuse, the circular response is: "it's not because we say it's not". Well, that explains everything, then -- thanks! And, ummmm, ... am I dealing with a group of third-graders or what? I'm just trying to clarify. Or, in the alternative ... I guess it's a bit much to expect, ummmm, intelligent answers? (3) Anyone here know what the English word "discussion" means? It's actually a relatively commonplace term. (I guess, after third grade -- perhaps?) The top of this page says that this is the place to discuss such a matter. And, within --- what? --- 30 seconds of me posting my question, some horse's ass marks it as "resolved". Before I get to reply. That's conducive to a "discussion"? On which planet, exactly? Lemme know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Want some cheese with that whine? Let me know! Thanks. JuJube (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling on you! I'm telling on you! I feel as if that comment was uncivil! What recourse do I have? Can any Admin help me? I feel that User JuJube violated the incivility policy with that comment! Who do I tell? How can I tell on him and get him in trouble? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph what do you want? You asked about admin abuse, people looked at it and decided that in thier opinion there wasn't any. And now you come back again and ask the exact same people the same question and seem surprised to get the exact same answer. Calling people third graders, unintelligent, and unknowing of definitions of common english words is exactly the wrong way to go about changing people's minds. I'm going to mark this as resolved, Calm down and take the matter to deletion review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, you seem to mean well. But, you also ignored every question in my post. And, regardless of its tone, the questions are valid. Reread them and please reply. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

She obviously read them and has replied in her previous post. She suggested you take your concerns to deletion review. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to answer any questions you have but not here. (this thread will get out of hand) Post them on my talk page. I'm going out now but will be back later today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright violations and edit warring without establishing consensus

User:TheDoctorIsIn has continued his edit war after being told to stop editing against consensus.[54]

TheDoctorIsIn is adding copyright violations again after being warned he could be blocked if he continued.[55]

Please read the talk page of the chiropractic article. There are serious objections to the controversial changes.[56] Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright violations and edit warring without established consensus has continued.[57] QuackGuru (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ip vandal 69.108.105.178

Resolved

This guy is installing nonsense and reverting reverts of nonsense. At fairly high speed. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Reports like this are probably better off at WP:AIV, for future reference. Thanks. _GB^T/C 07:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I went there first, but they seem to have some protocol for formatting messages that I couldn't figure out, and if you get it wrong it is ignored. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Loren's talk page. _GB^T/C 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall hitting enter....

I've both reverted a disruptive edit and added a gallery to Austin K2, and when I go to the revision history, I noticed that Wikipedia logged an edit change 2 minutes before I finalized my intended edit. Trouble is, I never hit enter, rather the preview button a few times. During that time, I was undertaking previews of the editing (mostly due to me screwing up the gallery part by leaving in certain parts of the image tagging, like the brackets and the thumb part.). Is this a fluke in the program or am I gonna get automatically penalized for violating the 3RR rule even thought it's a mistake?? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What you did doesn't appear to have been a revert, and it doesn't appear that you were involved in an edit war, so you have nothing to worry about. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats good to hear. But I still have to ask how did the system "catch" that phantom edit?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Saheb Qibla Fultali

Could someone familiar with the area take a look at this and decide if it is a problem, please? Loren.wilton (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

yes the tone is wrong, and the rest of the article is not all that much better; furthermore, none of it is referenced. It is quite possible that it's notable, but some source information at least is needed, in some language DGG (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Igniateff is Joshuarooney

Igniateff

Joshuarooney (talk) was someone who tried to get TharkunColl and myself blocked from wikipedia not to long ago.

If you check TharkunColl's talk page you can see most of it play out. Essentially TharkunColl got in a little trouble for a picture, and Joshua blew it up into something quite bigger, even to to point where he was able to convince many Admins to take part with him in a witch hunt, even convincing them he himself ran a Check User, and getting TharkunColl and myself temporarily banned. However eventually the admins were made realize that no check user request was ever run by Joshua, that Joshua himself was sock-puppet, and that I was in fact not one. Right after these events I posted in the RCU page that righted Tharkun and myself "owned". I was pretty upsert at the time (still am a little) and I just felt i needed to say it.

After that had all passed Igniateff shows up, and posts in my talk page and gives birth to a whole new ruckus, just view my talk page for details. Here are the reasons why I believe Igniateff is Joshua.

1. Brought up an old comment: If you check the talk page, he was reprimanding me for something I did quite a few days earlier, warning me not to 'troll' somewhere, that I obviously was not trolling, or had ant intention to return to.

2. Threatened me: For those of you who looked at what Joshua had said to thark and myself, he did quite a bit of threating, as to our consequences. On my talk page you can see Igniateff immedtiely threaten me with a "Final Warning" followed by "reblocking with no chance for rebate". Such threats are within the character of Joshua.

3. New Account: His account was created right AFTER JoshuaRooney's account was blocked. In none of his mannerisms does he act like a new members, for instance digging up old RCU's and giving other members warnings about them. Then threatening the member with blocking, and posting an ANI on it. All of which do not add up to the actions of a new member. (Account Created AFTER JOSH'S was disabled, and gravitated TOWARDS THE OLD RCU)

4. Admin Attack : Previously Joshua's strategy had been to round up Admin's and convince them they needed to punish/block us. Just as before he did the same, finding admins to come get upset at me at my user page, one of which very nearly blocked me again, thus doing exactly as he planned. What can I say, he knows how to manipulate the admins? Also on my talk page you see him mention how he has "Two admins" on his side, again alluding to his conscious efforts to recruit and subvert admins against his targets. (Last time he tricked them into blocking me..)

5. English? : Not one of my stronger points, but like Joshua, he is also from England. There are only so many people in england..right?

Those are my main reasons why I suspect him as being Joshua, I feel the evidence, especially in consideration of when his account was created, is at least enough to give cause for further exploration. ShieldDane (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you believe that (1)Ignaiteff is the new username of the blocked Joshuarooney, (2) that he has continued the behavoir that got him blocked to begin with and (3) he should blocked again. Am I understanding correctly before I investigate?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's in the affirmative. ShieldDane (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this assessment. It's likely in my opinion. Rudget. 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to keep him from creating vast Admin armies to attack me? As much as i like being yelled at for 3 days before anyone listens to my side...I'm sorry, it's just this kids tactic is to get admins to come down on me, and so in general all i ever see are admins showing up to do just that. So what next? Do we check user, does this count as sock puppetry? ShieldDane (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser  Confirmed. Unfortunately his school is already vandal-blocked allowing registered users to edit but not create new accounts, but he can make new accounts at home where he has a large range that would be a problem to block effectively. Of course he's not an admin no matter what he says. Hopefully any admins who respond to his complaints will investigate more thoroughly next time. You can point out in your responses that you have been targeted and point to this thread and the previous checkuser findings. Thatcher 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So is that a no to blocking? ShieldDane (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Igniateff is blocked. The only way to prevent him from creating more accounts would be to block at least 200,000 customers of a major ISP. Thatcher 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

199,999 more to go? =DShieldDane (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of a banned user

I would like some opinions on the issue of an editor apparently returning to en.wiki after being banned for one year. Namely, Stefanomencarelli initiated an arbcom that ruled substantially against the incivil behaviour exhibited. The banned editor may be operating under 190.140.234.59 but has so far although returning to the "old neighbourhood" and making mainly inconsequential submissions, has been a "good faith editor." I would be inclined to keep an eye on this account and other anons who exhibit similar editing patterns but again have not participated in any disruptive actions. What say you? FWIW, the aforementioned editor may be legitimately trying to re-establish himself as a reformed contributor, and I would have no problem with that. Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi there, some users might actually change from being a ¨vandal¨ to a reformed contributor, as you said. Therefore, for now, I would assume good faith! Have a nice day! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thus, as long as he's not causing any problems there's nothing to worry about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus

User:Ottava Rima has decided to mass-edit articles to replace the word portmanteau with "blend", based on his interpretation of the word's definition. When it was brought to his attention that the Oxford English Dictionary allows for the usage common in Wikipedia (rather ridiculously common actually) he stated that "the OED makes mistakes and makes them often". After being asked to stop until he'd discussed the matter, he has continued making the same change to another 30 or so articles so far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word blend includes terms considered "portmanteau" words. But to be a portmanteau word, the words have to have syllabic overlap in order to contain the original syllabic sounding of the two former words. This is explained on the page for blend. If people would bother to look at the page, which it has been brought to their attention, they would see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Further mistakes - some people use "portmanteau" for "compound words", which are clearly not the same. Others have used words that combine acronyms as portmanteau words, which goes against the definition of portmanteau words also. Some people have included puns, which are not portmanteau words. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We understand what you think the distinction is. Unfortunately the OED and other reliable sources don't agree with you. (It's particularly ironic that you keep changing "brunch" because the first known use of the word in 1896 described it as a "portmanteau word"). Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you haven't proved that the OED doesn't agree with me. You claim it does, without citing evidence. The word is used incorrectly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The point was that you were politely asked to stop and convince other editors that you were correct. Instead, you chose to dismiss several different editors entirely and continue to make said change without having deigned to respond to the argument that there are reliable sources which concede that the looser definition is acceptable, other than to dismiss them as being wrong.And your edits have been over a large number of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By "politely asked" you mean that I was asked by you to stop putting in the correct terms? You did not ask for such evidence. You started a revert campaign. There was nothing polite about your action. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd "proved" quite conclusively what the OED says with several quotations at Talk:Portmanteau#This Page is Wrong. I'm not sure what other evidence you're looking for. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By "proved" you cited the OED citing an instance in which a college student used the term portmanteau, whereas, college professors and linguists commonly accept brunch as a blend, according to Blends ] and many other sources I can provide. A college student does not prove the proper use of the word, and does not contradict how linguists use the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Punch (magazine) that called brunch a portmanteau in 1896, not a student. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the condescending tone produced forth by the above people who are unwilling to provide evidence and look up the definitions, here is some more support, from real linguists like myself, on the issue: [58] I suggest all curious about this please read. I have more sources on the issue if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, multiple editors have disagreed with you. This is the time to stop and work out your differences. Continuing to edit war over your changes and make mass changes based on your interpretation isn't the way to go and down that road lies a block for disruption. Please use some dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Three points on this issue - one, there is no place to deal with "consensus" on such errors, as they are definitional in the same way there are people who correct spelling. Two, editors who are taking offense are not a majority, and are mostly those who are personally involved and probably feel offended that their individual pages have been edited. Three, there have been other editors who have supported me, and admin who have approved of my action before this. The term is as I have cited above, and will not change. There is a linguistic difference that people mistake. Some are even confusing compound words out of their zeal to put forth a word they do not understand. Please read the link I provided above and go through the pdf. You will learn a lot about blends. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First - yes, Wikipedia works by consensus, you do need to deal with other editors here and on this issue specifically. Second, doesn't matter if its a "majority", for the record, I personally disagree with your actions as well. Third, sounds like the start of a good discussion and like I said on your talk admins cannot "approve" you to make edits, they're just editors like everyone else.

Please stop assuming that I don't know what you're talking about, I do and in fact, know a lot of the history behind the literary versus colloquial use of the term. I'm not sure if you realize, but you come across a bit condescending when you keep asking others to read that paper. I think you're missing the fact that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for experts -- there is more than one use for the term, regardless of whether linguists turn purple at the suggestion or not. Shell ^babelfish 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to link colluqial terminology when dealing with definitional aspects to various pages. And I come off condescending when I ask others to read a source when it was claimed that I don't have one? I believe you entered into an absurdum. I suggest you read the progression of events and note the timing of each, before you make said accusations in the future. Being an expert or not does not mean that incorrect terminology is acceptable. When people use "portmanteau" for a compound word, that is blatantly wrong, and that is not about colloquialisms or not. There is a black and a white when it comes to such distinctions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we disagree about a lot of things here, but regardless, the entire point of this thread and my comments was to point out that you need to stop and talk to other editors and stop edit warring. Thank you for joining in the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I must point out here that WP:BOLD verifies my right to act in the way I did, and the edit warring came from others who reverted me without making sure that my reverts were correct or not (which many were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct, especially when differentiating between compound words and those which aren't). Now, since you refused to accuse others of edit warring, I don't think you have the right to claim any impartiality, which would negate your whole purpose of being here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to say who might be right, so I cannot comment on the issue itself. But: While there's nothing wrong with being bold, that does not give you the right to keep reverting. You've been bold, you've been reverted, now it's time to discuss the proposed changes. That's the circle of life BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Conti|✉ 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's still doing it!! To whom does one turn at this point? Pilch62 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN3. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User making false racist allegations

Kevin j (talk · contribs) is accusing admin Theresa Knott of being a white supremacist and refuses to remove or retract the allegations in spite of being warned by an admin. Can some further action please be taken. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of false allegation, and Kevin knows it is a false allegation. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not explicitly calling her a racist. He's drawing a rather odd, inarticulate comparison between TK's treatment of him and the treatment of blacks by white supremacists. Racism is not the issue. The more pressing concern is that this user is being a generally disruptive pain in the ass and that very few of his recent edits have been remotely constructive.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They've now been blocked. Hut 8.5 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Jagz

I believe that User:Jagz has a persistent history of disruptive edits on the talk:Race and intelligence page. Here are four examples from today (the second may also be a veiled form of anti-Semitism):[59], [60], [61], [62]

I am highly partisan in this matter: I have long accused Jagz of pushing a fringe POV (claims by non-mainstream scientists that Blacks are genetically predisposed to lower IQ scores), so I would appreciate other admin's who can look at this objectively, and decide what, if any, action should be taken. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base

I don't know if this is some kind of WP glitch or if it's my computer, but a user edited this article (a very good edit I might add) and now most of the page is missing, although the IP didn't remove the information. This is what the article looked like before the edit and this is what it looks like now. Is anyone else seeing this or do I just have too many blonde highlights and am missing something. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come upon this a couple of times before. The editor did not format their reference properly (ie left out the < > symbols in a couple of spots) which causes everything to go blank after this spot. I have fixed it so this can be marked as resolved except for the fact that I don't know anything about this subject so I think that someone who does should fact check the info added for accuracy. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Silvia Lancome

I stumbled upon an edit war going on with the Silvia Lancome article with charges of sockpuppetry and vandalism between multiple users over several days. Not sure what they are bickering about since the disputed changes seem minor to me. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam who was banned indefinitely in November 2007 and who has been flouting their ban ever since through their use of numerous Sockpuppets (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beh-nam/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam) and IP's from Toronto, Canada is editing using the IP 65.93.219.52 and has used this address to warn his acquaintance Anoshirawan not to edit war. [63] I've been reverting Beh-nam's edits per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits (including Silvia Lancome) is it possible to issue a block to the IP address. In future when he edits using an IP where is the most appropriate place to bring it to peoples attention to get them blocked here or somewhere else. - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Undo by user MezzoMezzo in Islamic Music article

The User:MezzoMezzo has undone my referenced addition to the article Islamic music calling them not true factually and historically (see this) and according to article's talk page, this user has done this act upon new additions before. Please do the necessary acts. Regards, Dany (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ass" and "Fuck you" attacks

In the edit history for the Cannibal Corpse article, user 142.163.159.219 (who is suspected to be the signed out IP of user Jumanji656) today called me an "ass" and said "fuck you" as I reverted his inappropriate nonsense. He keeps dropping trivia and quotes in various articles, including this one, without proper reputable source or formatting. Please investigate the personal attacks and ban if necessary. Thank you. Logical Defense (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user to remain civil. I think that's all that's required at this stage. If he continues, he can be blocked. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Missions dilemma

Resolved

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a user named User:Mdhennessey who has made it his mission, so to speak, to insert a paragraph [64] into many articles about the San Francisco missions, concerning the Asian-American land bridge from 13,000 years ago, with a citation that is simply the title of a book that makes an assertion that there was major impact on the native peoples, without exploring that theme. That sounds at first like a simple content dispute, but it looks to me like he's trying to make a point of some kind, which is against the rules. The other rules violations I'm concerned about are (1) moving everyone's talk page comments from one talk page [65] to another Talk:Spanish missions in California without the editors' consent; (2) insisting that anyone who disagrees does so from ignorance or "soapboxing"; [66] and (3) lecturing others about the rules [67] [68] while seemingly ignoring them himself. I'd just like to know if the user is within his rights or has overstepped the bounds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you the time and trouble of dealing with this issue; Wikipedia just lost me as an editor. Issue resolved. Good luck! Mdhennessey (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I take the above quick surrender to be an admission of guilt, and as license to revert his addition of that largely irrelevant paragraph from the various articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it as an admission of nothing, other than an indication that I will not devote any more of my time responding to one unfounded argument after another. And so far as editing the various articles goes, "You own them now." Mdhennessey (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I take the above as well as this stereotypical drama-queen "I quit" statement [69] (which I safely characterize as drama-queen stuff since I did it myself once and was called on it) as further evidence of his unsuitability to be a wikipedia editor at this time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I will refrain from further reverting the user's seemingly pointless paragraph until a reasonable time for someone to comment here, besides the bickering between the two of us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What you did or did not do previously has no bearing on anyone else, ESPECIALLY ME. Wikipedia would be far better off without you and your "drama queen" attitude. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough! Your dispute is apparently over, so stop antagonising each other or you'll both be blocked for incivility. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You may mark it as resolved, if you wish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c), {and ditto to Tango's post) Both of you quit it. B.Bugs, go read WP:BITE and WP:AGF. You don't get to tell other editors that they don't belong here, period full stop. You've been here long enough to know better. Take this to your talkpages, or just leave each other alone. Content problems will get fixed. You've made your point. Stop antagonizing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now just hang on a moment. First, this was not a newcomer, he's been here nearly 2 years. Second, another editor first raised the complaint to him, and he stonewalled the other editor and me. Third, in the past when I've had issues, I've been told this is the place to take it when the issue is not getting resolved, rather than continued edit warring. Taking things to WP:ANI and letting other eyes judge the dispute is supposed to be the proper way to do things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I was deleting your post or that your post was bad. I'm saying that you telling another editor that they shouldn't be here was bad. I clearly said that the content issue would get fixed (they always do eventually. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that comment was below the belt. I was comparing his approach to where I was at awhile back, when it was questionable whether I was suited to be a wikipedia editor at that time. What I learned from that experience is that at some point, it's better to take it here rather to continue to go around in an endless loop... and to take it here sooner than I used to be willing to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in all seriousness I think blocking is warranted and would send the appropriate message. Mdhennessey (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't issued to "send appropriate messages", but rather to prevent damage to Wikipedia. They can be issued for disruption, persistent vandalism and harassment/stalking, but I think B.Bugs will be leaving this issue alone. No block necessary, or warranted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I would still like to know whether it's within the rules for an editor to move the comments from one article's talk page to another article's talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I want to answer one question the other editor had as to why I had any business getting involved in this article, since I clearly know nothing about the topic. Well, it's because I was doing some work on the Mission Reds baseball team, and I wanted to find out more about the Mission District, and ended up on the Mission San Francisco de Asís page. You just never know where the exploration threads will lead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Bugs, that's one of the best things about Wikipedia. I've learned more minutia clicking on Wikilinks than I ever thought. Sometimes I find myself fixing typos in articles I've never heard of (and won't remember). And you are well within your editing privileges (and so is Mdhennessey) to add/fix/remove/update/expand/nominate/source any article you want. And you are well within your editing privileges to remove/repair/delete anything too. That's the beauty of a wiki! Just know (both editors here) that you need to back up your "stuff" with sources and to try not to take offense if someone challenges your work. That is within privilege too. 100% of articles have talkpages for this reason. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(marked resolved)

Problem with Doctor (Doctor Who)

On 18:07 March 1, 2008, I submitted edits to the article Doctor (Doctor Who), among which were two additions that have led to problems. One involved regeneration and the line of dialog, "...dead too long this time..." from the 1996 Dr. Who telefilm, the other the TARDIS's alternate console room seen throughout the 1976-77 season of the original Who programme, introduced in the serial The Masque of Mandragora. They were promptly reverted by User:Edokter, claiming in his edit summary that they were speculation. The latter edit has just been effectively conceded (one of the people in the dispute just made a mere minor fine tuning-type edit to my restoration of it), but the other remains disputed. However the disputes, seen first in edit summaries then in a talk page thread, Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Reverting reversion by Edokter, have been far less than reasonable. First User:Ckatz replied to my posted defense of my work, then Edokter himself joined the discussion. Neither have ever actually dealt with what I posted in my defense (which was an airtight case), nor acknowledged my saying in subsequent posts that they have done so. I had also pointed out that there are things in the article, including what the alt. console room edit of mine was refuting, was speculation, and their failure to remove them as well was dubious. No mention of this from them, either. After my posting of March 6 was not responded to for two weeks, I assumed concession by default and reposted the three edits that had been in dispute (User:DonQuixote, after making a factually indefensible statement about the regeneration edit, made compromise suggestions for the other two, one of which—for the edit I have not specified here—I stated then that I accepted and is what I posted, but no actions were taken or even comments made by the other two editors on either). Ckatz reverted the regeneration edit with no new ground stated, but, as I said, merely did a minor fine tuning to the alt. console room passage, effectively conceding its basic validity. Both he and Edokter added new replies to the thread, having no more validity in the context of the actual facts than any of their previous postings; Edokter's suggests that at that time he was unaware Ckatz had conceded the one edit. I recommend most strenuously that they both be subjected to disciplinary action, especially Edokter.

If you are wondering why there are no links to "diff" pages, it is because the only way I know to do them is according to the instructions on Help:Diff, which when followed to the letter simply do not work. I posted a comment to this effect with more specifics on Help talk:Diff#The instructions here don't work on 10 January 2008, but there has as yet been no reply or action. Ted Watson (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Admins do not settle content disputes. You have made no accusations of anyone violating policy, so there appears to be nothing for an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If the involved parties cannot come to a consensus, the next step would be dispute resolution. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User Arsenic99 appears to be violating his ban

Resolved

Edits reverted, Arsenic99 blocked 24 hours.

Arsenic99 was recently given a six month ban from editing, quote, "any articles or talk pages that, reasonably speaking, relate to the Armenian Genocide". Since then he has been making edits to the List of designated terrorist organizations article: [[70]], adding material that relates to the Armenian terrorist organisation ASALA.

To quote from the Wikipedia entry on ASALA, it was founded "to compel the Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its alleged responsibility for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, pay reparations, and cede territory for an Armenian homeland". It would thus appear that Arsenic99 is adding and editing material that relates to the Armenian genocide and that the editor is violating his ban. Meowy 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that Arsenic99's edits in that particular page appear to be very POV and antagonistic (in contrast to the neutral descriptions of all the other organisations and groups listed in the entry). While the actual content can be dealt with in the entry itself, the intent of Arsenic99 when making those edits is relevant to the issue here. Meowy 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted all of the edits he'd recently made to the article (just to make sure I got everything), and blocked him for 24 hours. I also informed him that his six-month discretionary ban has been reset. Other admins, feel free to review ... Blueboy96 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block him myself - good call. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time, if you could log this and similar blocks at WP:ARBAA2. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely seething...

Resolved.

...about my block. We have an admin chucking out hard rangeblocks and failing to respond to talkpage messages about innocent vicims. Other admins seeming to think it's more important to check with the blocking admin than unblock even though they had already given permission to unblock via the block template message in the event of any problems. Not to mention the fact that the fact that the blocking admin is apparantly also an Arbiter acting as some kind of inhibiting factor when it came to undoing it. Process and bureaucracy trump any kind of common sense once again. Exxolon (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked, so I don't know what you're talking about. If you're complaining about an IP block, you need to specify the IP address. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was silly for anyone to wait to hear from the blocking admin in this case. However the problem has already been solved, so I don't see that there's anything left to be done here. Friday (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unforunate that you were autoblocked because the IP you were using was part of a range hard blocked due to extensive vandalism, but I can assure you that FT2 would not have wanted to trp innocent users. I suspect he was acting because of checkuser evidence. All is sorted now, and you were only out of action for a short period of time - call it a well deserved break :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just got passed this one. Apologies - my day has been dealing with specific issues and my usualy days work; I've not caught up on messages for the last while. Basically, you caught by a hardening of an anti-vandalism block of a persistent vandal. If you take a look [71] you'll see exactly how much activity and how persistent has gone on in that range and how many people have tried to address it. You are one of very few legitimate users using it - the block message was specifically tuned in case any legitimate user were accidentally caught, they would know how to get it quickly reversed. At some point during the day a user messaged me to pass on your problem, and I told them on the spot when I saw the message that I was fine if the range was actively being used by a decent user, to reverse the IP block back to soft. The rest is courtesy and forethought; blocks on IP ranges by checkuser aren't verifiable by most administrators, so especially with those, one would usually ask the blocking admin what was up. In this case one might reverse it as Friday says, or ask... both views are widespread.

For what its worth, my apologies for the inconvenience. If you look at the block log link, I think you'll agree that a great many administrators have tried to handle it over time...

My regrets again, and if you ever do change IPs so you dont use that range can you let someone know?

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. Sorry if I came off a bit OTT - if I have a failing it's I have a ferocious temper and sometimes let that get the better of me. You've been far more polite than I deserve :) Exxolon (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I need help against an anonymous IP

Resolved

 – blocked both parties for 3RR violation--Tango (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area&action=history Please help against this IP, thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is marked as resolved, but it might not have been a good idea to point them both to WP:DR as well? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ip disruption

There are Ips going around replacing core wikipedia namespace pages (village pump, ANI, AN, etc) with "hello" and then a random number of some sort. They seem to be coming back every time they are blocked too, an example is provided here [72], and here is another [73], [74] newest version so far. Thoughts on this? AndreNatas (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious solution: hit the fucker with a range-block, surely? Don't have the technical ability for that myself, but someone online must do. Moreschi (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the Canadian 172 vandal, with a new MO. How I've always wanted a range block for AOL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Back again, they also seem to be using a vandal bot by that speed [75]. AndreNatas (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, just multiple tabs works as well. Can't rangeblock? Then all I can suggest is RBI. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an admin) Wouldn't a rangeblock to all of 172.xxx block every single person on 172.xxx? How can an IP use bots??? Should they just be blocked on sight? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kurt Krenn

I've just had the conversation below with User:Doc glasgow but it seems we have not been able to reach consensus. I firmly believe that the fact that Wikipedia is—and will always be—work in progress should be taken into consideration whenever someone comes across an article that is not yet perfect. In this case, references seem to be missing. However, speedy deleting the article does not help improve Wikipedia as the text is now only available to a small minority of admins. <KF> 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I have just found out thanks to your message, you have deleted the Kurt Krenn page. What is going on here? I couldn't find any AfD discussion. <KF> 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article as is contravened our policy on biographies of living people. The policy requires that all negative statements are referenced from reliable sources, this biography was full of them and wholly unreferenced. You are welcome to recreate a new article which complies with the policy.--Doc^g 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly no case for speedy deletion. There are people all over the world whose biography is full of "negative statements" because they have done a lot of negative things in their lives. You might have put an "unreferenced" tag on top of the article or put it on AfD, nothing more. Please recreate it and do one or the other. Best wishes, <KF> 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy allows, indeed mandates deletion. The problem is not negative statements, it is negative statements without referencing. Such things must always be removed from wikipedia.--Doc^g 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you got a bit carried away. Where does it say that "policy mandates deletion"? Let me repeat my request: Please restore the deleted page and all of its edit history. Only afterwards can you do any of the following four things: (a) add an "unreferenced" tag; (b) provide the missing reference(s) yourself; (c) add an AfD tag and create the corresponding AfD page; or (d) remove those passages from the article which might harm Krenn. All the best, <KF> 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to decline your request.--Doc^g 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KF, everything was according the policy. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KF, without prejudice. The proper place to contest my deletion is deletion review.--Doc^g 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote the specific passage from WP:BLP:

"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)."

There are legal reasons for this policy. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started a stub, which, KF, is surely a better approach than going to DRV (which is the right forum, indeed). Nobody is saying we shouldn't have an article but it needs to be a fair article that doesn't violate BLP, is verifiabl;e, etc, and from what I can gather none of that was in place before so likely a good decision. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good call. WP:FORGET should result in a better article overall, I hope. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, thanks for starting a stub on Kurt Krenn. I don't know if you have read the deleted article, but now that I've reread it I cannot for the life of me understand why it allegedly is a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages"." Krenn is not attacked in the deleted article. The page serves the usual purpose of a biographical article and does not "disparage its subject", let alone only disparage it. The only shortcoming of the text is the absence of one or two, maybe three, references.

The Sisyphean task that has just started is to start from scratch without the help of the deleted text. My guess is that sooner or later a Wikipedian or two, supported by some casual browsers-turned-editors, will come up with very much the same article again—just because there is nothing else to report about Kurt Krenn. Personally, I hate people working against each other, but if you are all happy with it, so shall it be. Happy Easter! <KF> 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ESCStudent774441

I blocked ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption, rudeness and completely failing to get it (for multiple values of it). Something tells me it might be simpler just to indef this one, but he's asking for (or is that demanding?) unblocking, so please review. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrigible troll with no useful contributions and even less clue. (Declaration, it was me he was trolling).--Doc^g 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the case, but I've rejected the unblock request on the simple grounds that he didn't give a reason. I need a little more than "it's unjust" to unblock someone. --Tango (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ECed with you Tango, sorry about that... I reviewed enough edits in the time prior to the block being placed (at Doc's request) that I endorse the block as sound, and I declined it as well... ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've just declined it a third time and protected his Talk page for 12 hours. I think three bites at the cherry, combined with Admin-shopping, is enough. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Seeing a couple of threads above, it may be worth noting that the OTRS posse has been taking advantage of a slow email day to work at the backlogs; at least 100 tickets ave been handled in the last 48 hours, many of them BLPS going back up to two months. So there may be a flurry of "WTF?" activity. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a threat?

I could use a bit of help here: User :Kmnicholas has been repeatedly creating a page about her company, ISM Boston. Now it looks like a threat has appeared on Talk: ISM Boston. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You must mean the bit about "Further deletion will result in press activity both digital and print with the deleting person's details being published. You MUST contact the original publisher and discuss the matter before taking action. This is a legal requirement." Looks like WP:HARASS, WP:LEGAL, and a couple of others all rolled into one. Raymond Arritt (talk)

I do. Perhaps someone else could take it from here? I've deleted the article a couple of times. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely--and the page has been deleted with a sprinkling of WP:SALT. Blueboy96 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Need an Admin deletion

Hi all, can I get an admin deletion of a revision to a talk page? I have made an oversight request, but have no idea how long that takes, and I think this needs to be done pronto. Please email me for details as to which talk page and revision, if necessary. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

or leave note on my talk page, and I can email. thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them - please double-check to make sure I got the right ones. You may want to email requests for oversight - they're usually pretty quick on the trigger - and let them know that all 4 deleted diffs can be oversighted. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)