Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 12 November 2008 (→‎Blocks: approve action and comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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


    Disruptive school project?

    Articles in need of review after editing (in either 2007 or 2008) by students of Dr Graham Meikle at the Department of Media at Macquarie University

    I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.

    If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.

    I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, this project arguably even more disrruptive that Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics from Marshall University, which was discussed at length on ANI in May. This one involves multiple inappropriate edits in multiple exisiting articles with intervening proper edits by others which makes reversion and clean-up very messy. Several of them edit war as well. At least the Marshall project had a central page and identified themselves so we could get in touch with them. This lot are all anonymous and there are now literally dozens of them. I've left messages on the talk pages of quite a few of them asking them to let their instructor know about this thread and Wikipedia:School and university projects. I don't know how effective it will be. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The exact same thing happened with what looks like the same university last year, with similar amounts of less than ideal editing: see here. The instructor was contacted last time, but it doesn't seem to have helped. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hopefully they will see it and get in touch. If the disruption gets out of hand, I reluctantly suggest that the alternative is to start issuing temporary blocks until someone talks to us. I hate to paint Wikipedia as an unwelcoming place, but we can't forever be doing damage control for these school assignments. EyeSerenetalk 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of what they've done seems to have been tidied up. The article Hacker ethic has been considerably expanded with, to my mind, too much detail and too many explanations and references. I think the previous version of 23 October is a better article, but rather than just revert, I have made a proposal to do so on the talk page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Identification

    The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.

    Looking at the history of internet activism reveals that this is a problem that has been extant for more than 1 year. Around October 2007, a whole load of users whose names all ended in "MAS 214" edited that article. There are are more at around the same time in the revision history of broadcasting. There are yet more at around the same time in the revision history of photography. There are so many, in fact, that I've had to refactor them out of this text and put them in a table. MAS 214 was another of Dr Meikle's courses.

    It appears that Dr Meikle is anually setting xyr students a task of editing Wikipedia. You can even read the instructions that the students were given for choosing their account names at User:Wumas214. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just an assignment where we edit three wikipedia entries that are relevant to issues discussed in MAS229 (it could just be a few sentences per entry). All entries would be correct, as they are coming from sources approved by the MAS229 course (hopefully they have been cited as needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapleymas229 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really uncomfortable listing all these accounts in a table on the main page of WP:ANI. Many of those names appear to consist of first and last names; putting them in a table listing the specific class they are taking at a specific university essentially "outs" people that may have an expectation of privacy here. I've removed the table; it may or may not be appropriate to put that table somewhere else, I'm not quite sure, but I request a discussion take place before it is re-added here. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No trouble barneca, you're right to err on the side of caution. The table may be useful at some point, but it's probably best if it stays out of sight for now. The thought occurs that a discussion of privacy issues should have been part of these students' preparations for their assignment... EyeSerenetalk 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. I'm taking it that "G. Meikle" doesn't have a Wikipedia account? (Against rule one of my, yes, unfinished little essay.) Ugh. Will try to help out with this tomorrow; I'm simply too busy today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps no account, but one of his students did create an article for Graham Meikle. Perhaps if we delete it, we will get his attention. Just joking... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about an AfD? (Seriously - he doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF). JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That (revised) table is really disheartening :( I think that unless we can get some productive communication going, we'll need to close this project down somehow while all those articles are reviewed. Perhaps first though we should allow some time for a response - Dr. Meikle, if you read this thread via Voceditenore's messages on your students' talk pages, could we please ask you to either post here or contact one of us via talk-page/email? EyeSerenetalk 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Meikle alerting him to this discussion and the minor controversy around his students' editing. Avruch T 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad I checked back here first - I just had that same thought and was looking up his email address. Thanks Avruch ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone heard anything yet? Actually, looking at the first three articles, maybe Delicious carbuncle wasn't far off the mark. I'm not seeing anything there that meets WP:PROF... EyeSerenetalk 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be good to find out who is now running this course. It must have some kind of instructor! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Failing that, I suggest an email to the head of department. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    I've heard back from Dr. Meikle. He no longer works for the university hosting this class (and has not for at least two years apparently). He cc'd my e-mail and his response to the course instructors for this year and last, so I will let you know when I hear from either of them. Avruch T 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Meikle also requests the deletion of Graham Meikle. I'm willing to take the article to AfD in a day or two if the article does not get deleted as part of the resolution of the larger issue. Avruch T 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, no issues here. I'm not sure how far we normally take subject requests for deletion when the subject is clearly notable, but I don't think that consideration applies here anyway. Btw JohnCD, I didn't see your earlier WP:PROF comment when I posted mine, so apologies for the unnecessary duplication (but we're obviously thinking on the same lines!) EyeSerenetalk 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good with an A7 deletion as well, but someone placed the tag earlier and it was removed shortly thereafter by a non-admin (I believe). I've posted a prod just in case you (barneca) decide not to delete it A7. Avruch T 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not freaking out, but can we take this to AFD? Despite the subject's off-hand request, they do seem to be notable. I know this will seem pointy, but why don't we have a policy for subject-requested deletions? That's not a rhetorical question, but this isn't the thread for an answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing my request for AFD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a response is good news at least. If we can turn this around into a productive exercise, that would be great. However, I don't want to get too optimistic just yet. EyeSerenetalk 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He needs to get the University to fix its web site, then. Its 2008 course handbook (linked-to above) lists him explicitly as the staff contact for these courses, and he is still listed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Media staff listing (also linked-to above). Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a more general email address for the Media dept. at Macquarie University here. Probably worth a try. Their blurb says it's "Australia's Innovative University". Ahem... Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe they'd better slow down the emphasis on being "innovative" and start teaching some of their students to write coherently. I cleaned up two of the articles so far, and the writing style was positively ghastly. Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm engaged in an interesting e-mail conversation with Dr. Meikle, but I have not yet heard back from the current course instructor. Perhaps we have an Australian editor who can call? Avruch T 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I just wanted to introduce myself. I am John Scannell, and I am the convenor of the subject (MAS229) that has made life difficult for some of you. First of all, I do apologise for the inconvenience, and yes, if you have to correspond about this "incident" - then don't direct your correspondence to Graham Meikle, but to me. I am now the convenor of the course, and quite frankly had no idea that this project would be considered so disruptive. As someone who values Wikipedia, I did not realise that the actions of the students would have created such a controversy. Yes, I did take part in the project again this year, and yes, I was aware of the problems of last year. At the beginning of the semester, I proposed that we should create our own Wiki, so as not to raise the ire of Wikipedia again in 2008. However, after consultation with peers and open source advocates, I thought that what we were doing was entirely within the spirit of open collaboration? My predecessor, Dr. Meikle, and myself both did our best to advise the students to treat their editing with appropriate care and concision as to make valuable contributions to a valuable resource. With the problems of last year in mind, I told them to act responsibly, and to put "quality" over "quantity", don't go in and "slash and burn", make the most appopriate edits etc...I can assure you that, as best I could, I tried to steer them in the right way. Of course, given the fact that I have 100 odd students, its hard for me to do anything else but hope they act on my advice. That said, as someone who has a very strong interest in valourising the contributions to open source culture, via Linux, via Wikipedia et al, I am somewhat shocked that contributions made in good faith would attract such derision. Yes, I can understand that many students, will only contribute to Wikipedia for this subject and may never contribute again. One hopes, that some will have enjoyed this exercise to the extent that they might be valued contributors in the future. The success of the project is based on collaboration, no? Am I being too naive here? I know that doesn't mean that its a free for all...and if the students haven't acted appropriately, I will sort them out, personally. However, I think you know, as well as I, that open source can also have its element of "exclusivity", and that newcomers need to pay their dues etc, before getting their hands dirty...which is understandable in some respects, but on the other side of the coin, only a very small number of these students had ever contemplated contributing to an open source project and this project is undertaken with the hope that some of them will value the experience enough to contribute in the future... If some of the writing is "positively ghastly", then it is constructive peer review that can assist them in becoming better writers. I mean, come on, there is poor writing all over Wikipedia. Again, I'm not happy about this...but none of them were acting unethically, none of them were trying to do anything other than contribute to the project AS BEST THEY CAN. So basically, what do you want to do here, keep it egalitarian, or not? Chances are, that after two years of problems surrounding this assignment, that I, personally, WON'T attempt it again. So there you go, that's 100 potential contributors (even if only a small percentage will contribute again) that you've lost. The point is, that every potential contributor has to start somewhere. You did, right? --Scannell229 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also add that I am so very grateful to those who DO expend so much time and effort in contributing to Wikipedia. Your comments, for better or worse, are actually very instructive indeed, and I will be making use of them when MAS229 reconvenes in the next couple of days. FYI, The students won't be making any further entries. The assignment is now over. --Scannell229 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One small comment: If you're going to conduct such a large scale "experiment" or "project" on Wikipedia, you should notify people on Wikipedia, if only out of common courtesy. Enigma message 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to phrase this a bit more diplomatically, but frankly I don't believe there's a diplomatic way to make this point: It's not the job of the Wikipedia community to teach college students how to write. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Yes, there certainly is "bad writing all over Wikipedia"--and we generally deal with that when we find it--but those bad writers are here under their own steam; they weren't told by an authority figure that they HAD to edit Wikipedia. Since you are the one who told them to do that, it's incumbent upon you to make sure their writing quality is up to snuff. If, when I was a teacher, I had created an assignment like this, I would have copied the relevant articles into an offline space, had the students make their initial edits, and vetted those edits, both for prose style and for adherence to WP policy, BEFORE allowing them to add their desired content to live article-space. Yes, that would have been a lot of work to do with a group of 100 students; however, that work has now been handed over, in the form of cleanup on dozens of articles, to the larger community of Wikipedia editors. In theory, the task you assigned your students is laudable; however, I feel that neither the potential pitfalls, nor the means of avoiding them, were thought through completely. Your assignment considered the aims of your course and of the students taking it; however, it doesn't quite seem that anyone considered whether those aims meshed with the more-general aims of Wikipedia. Since the assignment is now over, the issues raised here are now moot, but please consider them while developing similar tasks in the future. Thank you. GJC You were saying? 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that puts it very well. As a community we are pretty obliging, and if we're forewarned about this sort of thing we're only too happy to help out. We've had some incredibly successful academic projects, (see WP:MMM, WP:NRG and WP:WAPB; latter two still ongoing) but they've only worked so well because they were designed to integrate with Wikipedia's editing and article policies, and the teachers and lecturers concerned ensured both they and their students were operating together with the Wikipedia community. Our purpose here, as GJC has said, is to build an encyclopedia; advocating an open-source philosophy is almost an incidental by-product. Wikipedia can be successfully used as a educational tool (as shown by the projects I've mentioned above) but only in very specific ways, and only as long as an improvement in article content - in line with Wikipedia policies - is the result. We have no wish to deter you from contributing in the future, but please consider following the advice on User:Jbmurray/Advice and some of the other links hereabouts, and giving us some warning next time ;) EyeSerenetalk 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, consider me admonished. This was the first time that I took over this course project, so there are things that I would absolutely do differently if I had a chance to do it again. At least I now know who to liase with! Again, I apologise for any disruption to your work.--Scannell229 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that while zealous moderation has its advantages, in this case it's perhaps a little too zealous. I've no doubt that the majority of the information added by MAS229 students was largely unnecessary - one of the problems with assigning students a compulsory editing task on a small range of subjects - but there may have been, in the spirit of Wikipedia, valuable additions made to subjects. While it's unfortunate the task of clean-up falls to Wikipedia's editors, is this not just a drop in the proverbial ocean of edits made per day? I don't know why this rated several pages of discussion - apart from the fact that all students had names ending in 214 or 229, there would be no way of knowing whether this was a class project or a series of independent edits. This doesn't sit particularly well with the collaborative, open-source nature of Wikipedia in my opinion.--CsimpsonMAS229 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This isn't really zealous moderation. Some volunteers (That's all we are here) notices a trend in article editing and connected the dots. We normally welcome school projects but since the people editing in them are not able to learn how wikipedia works at their own pace we hope to catch large groups before they start down a particular path. The points made above about students being compelled to write something versus volunteers adding a note here and there is instrumental. I am not constrained by a course assignment in my editing. Consequently, I am not compelled to edit History of the Australian Army, a subject of which I know little, and add possibly unhelpful changes. Also, since there is only one of me, the volume of changes I can make is small. For a class of a dozen or more students, the volume of changes they may make is large. And since it the changes they make are in good faith, we can't just (and editors would never be expected to) revert the changes on sight. Each one has to be looked at and determine if it can be modified to improve the article. Again, these are volunteers doing this with limited time and varied interest. When faced with a project like this one, it can be hard to deal with the changes made without coming to a noticeboard like this one. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal?

    I realise that a formal proposal should go elsewhere but it might be opportune to float it briefly here first:

    Perhaps the Create account page could have one more field as follows:

    Is this account being created as part of an organised study or training activity: Yes/No.

    If No then there is no difference form now.

    If Yes then a form is presented asking for such things as Name/identifier of course, organising institution, course supervisor's wiki account. A user page for the new account is template preloaded with the above wiki linked details, with a reading list of instructions, guidelines and essays on wikipedia as the subject of a course.

    While this might not eliminate all such problems, it might stop the vast majority of them.

    Peet Ern (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It needn't be as complicated as an extra step. Just adding some text to what's already on account creation page would help. e.g.
    School and college projects
    If you are creating an account as part of a school or university project, please read Wikipedia:School and university projects first.
    Perhaps this is something for Village Pump proposals? Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Wilkes Booth and User:Arcayne

    A section near the end of the article on John Wilkes Booth has stirred some controversy. See Talk:John Wilkes Booth. In the spirit of cooperation, all involved have discussed possible compromises to problems with undue weight, Wp:Fringe, and WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. In an attempt to increase awareness of the discussion, I placed an appropriate tag here [[1]], in the section called Booth Escape Theories. The tag was removed by User:Arcayne on at least four occasions [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]]. The last deletion include the deletion of other information as well. This user has a problem with the tag because, as he puts it, I am the only one who wants the tag. This is not true, since User:Unschool has agreed with the inclusion of the tag. Each deletion includes an edit summery that is not true. User:JGHowes displayed displeasure with the tag, since not all of the references in the section have a verifiability problem. I then placed an appropriate [unreliable source?] tag on only the citations in question. I did so here,[[6]]. That too was reverted here [[7]], and continuing to claim that I am the only one who wants this although the talk page says differant. My intention was to make other users aware that a discussion is ongoing, but it seems that one user does not want that to happen. On the talk page I have been accused of being, and I quote Fucking arrogant and rude[[8]] for placing the tag on the section. Even if I am wrong about the information, We should at least be able to place a tag on a section so that others will be aware of a discussion. Can anyone help?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, Jojhutton actually seeks to remove the entire section that discusses the (well-cited) conspiracy theories that Booth somehow escaped justice.
    Joj first tried to have any mention of the conspiracy theory purged from the Lead (edit-warring in that effort for almost a week). When that failed to find consensus, (s)he then turned to trying to have the section itself removed - ie., no section, no need for the Lead to mention it.
    Jojhutton has repeatedly tagged the section noting (in edit summary) that a "verifiability check" is ongoing - a quick check of the user's history indicate no such check existing. When asked to provide a link to this "check"; (s)he finally posted to the RS Noticeboard days later, There, his arguments claiming lack of verifiability have been dismissed by two different editors (neither of them myself). It should be pointed out that the verifiability tag was placed in a section containing verifiabl citations, and lots of them.
    Jojhutton's excessive tagging of the section indicate a singular purpose to have the section removed. He misinterprets Wikipedia verifiability policy, despite numerous attempts by myself and others to help him/her get up to speed.
    He has no consensus for the removal of the section, and the tagging is an attempt to end-run that consensus. He is not - as he has claimed here and elsewhere - 'notifying folk of ongoing discussion'; a simple 'dispute' section tag would address that. That suggestion, as well as that of seeking out sources that explicitly address and contrast the escape theories were repeatedly ignored.
    As to the 'fucking arrogant and rude' comment, I should point out that it came from my sheer frustration at having the user ignore good advice from many other editors and continuing to tag the section in an effort to remove the section. Even the kindest of the editors in the article discussion call his attempts to remove the section a "gambit". I found it to be pointy and disruptive, and was not at all gentle in my disapproval of the user attempting to end-run consensus, ergo the comment. Sure, I should have avoided calling a spade a spade. I did in fact apologize for the outburst, but not for the transparent nature of the tagging. The user has less than 2k edits, and likely not yet truly aware that (s)he is not the smartest person in the room while editing in Wikipedia. Jojhutton may very well have thought that gaming the system was an appropriate tactic (which makes me sincerely doubt the "newness" of this user).
    Lastly, the only person who feels there is a "controversy" with the Booth Escaped section is in fact this user, and this user alone. There is no consensus for either the section's removal or tagging. Maybe this noticeboard can do what the article discussion and the RS noticeboard have clearly been unable to accomplish. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcayne is again misrepresenting the facts. I said the information is being checked for verfiability here [[9]], and I placed the notice here [[10]]. Less than 24 hours later, hardly days later as Arcayne claims. Sorry, but editing wikipedia is not my full time job, so I waited until I had ample time to make a report. As to the two editors who have dismissed my opinion, One is User:JGHowes, who is one of the involved editors, the other added this comment [[11]]. Not exactly the been dismissed that Arcayne made mention of. Arcayne seems to only be able to tell half truths, I have never seen it mentioned that Arcayne had ever suggested a differant tag. If I am wrong, then please provide a link to that suggestion. Arcayne thinks he has consensus, but User:unschool has disagreed with Arcayne as well. It is true, that I think the section should be deleted. It has no place on wikipedia. I was willing to find compromise, but it was met with disdain. Originally the debate was with WP:Undue weight. Arcayne and JGHowes responded to that request by actually making the section longer. That is when I began to scrutinize the sources. My argument is that anything can be sourced, but those sources must meet the criteria for inclusion. Sources based on unreliable facts by biased authors have no place on wikipedia. Arcayne argues that as long as it is sourced, it doesn't matter who says it or why. I tend to take a more realistic view of source material and look at who is making the accuations, especially when it comes to Fringe theories.. My full argument can be found on the talk page, as I do not wish to keep repeating myself.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but most of your post is incorrect, Jojhutton. To begin with, you said in your edit summary for the linked edit: "the sources have been nominated for a verifiability check". Yet, no such thing was done. Or at least, not for at least two days. If you meant you were searching on your own, then you should have left the material be and come back when you actually had info. We aren't here to wait on your schedule. Wikipedia moves with a pace independent from your own.
    As well, thanks for admitting that you wanted to purge the section, and were using tags towards that end. We here call that "gaming the system."
    Secondly, I and others suggested different tags, though, as noted before, none would have been best - you are equating the verifiability of the material provided in the cited material with our verifiability policy. They are two different things, as was pointed out t you at least four different times. You aren't a suitable evaluative source to contradict the info presented in a notable, verifiable source.
    Thirdly, when it comes to sourced, notable material, it doesn't matter who or why they said/wrote what they did. That they did is the notable event. You need to arrive - and quickly - at the realization and understanding that evaluating why someone makes a citable statement is original research. Your evaluation - as the sole voice of opposition to the current consensus - isn't usable. I understand that hurts your pride, but you need to suck it up. Ask some questions when you are getting reverted, instead of thinking we are all morons who don't appreciate your touted insight into Booth. You may have been here as another user before, but it doesn't appear that you have learned how to actually work with folk. Precisely what compromise had you suggested?
    As has been said before, your energies are better directed at adding material that presents a more balanced section (and thereby a better article). Filing an ANI to complain about your incorrect tags getting reverted is hardly an effort in that direction, now is it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did he survive, he went on to work for Alexander Graham Bell, helping to develop the Telephone Booth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That store merged with one of Ice-T's companies, and is now known as "T-Booth". -t BMW c- 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear there's a small company about to release a gadget called the iBooth, which plays back Shakespeare plays done up like they were on the US east coast during the 1860s. I think stateside and European teens will canny flock to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) And then it was bought out by the Toothy Inc. dentistry corporation, which changed the name to Toothy Boothy: Assassinations, good acting and dandy root canal all in one visit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Root canals are so cool, but my heart goes aflitter at the (wistful) thought of being able to hear John Booth do Romeo Montague. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that both jojhutton and Arcayne continue to edit war over this. As I am an involved editor in this instance, it is requested that another admin intervene.  JGHowes  talk
    Actually, i'd chosen to disengage from Joj some hours ago, as the tenor of his edit summaries has grown a bit too aggressive and attacky. Until the lad/lass calms down, things would only get worse by interacting with him/her. And I would cetainly not define keeping the article from becoming a battleground to be 'edit-warring'. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All sources must meet the RS standard. If not, then the source is not suitable and can not be used. If content can not be supported by a RS it should be removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is what I have been trying to say, but somehow Arcayne thinks that I am too new to add a tag. He is only upset, because I don't see things his way. I am the only one actually using wikipedia policy to make a point. Arcayne just wants the section to stay the way it is, and I don't know why.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you are wrong. Yet again. Maybe if you actually read the reasons why you have been incorrect, it might dawn upon you that some of us are (or in my case, were) trying to help you along. You want the section removed, and - for the reasons stated above and elsewhere - think that your personal opinion of the authors cited counts as a "verifiability check". It does not. You are not a part of the verifiability equation that Wikipedia uses. I wish you would learn this, because if you are unable to, you are going to butt heads with a great many other editors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of argument, I am not, by myself, able to determine whether or not the sources are verifiable. That is why I continued to place a tag on the section, so that the citations can be looked at by other editors. Without the tag, readers will just think that the sources meet the condition for verifiability. At least with the tag, other editors will have a chance to voice their opinions, but I guess we will never know now, since it has been reverted several times. I even asked the editor who doesn't want the tag, what his impression of the sources are. I am still waiting for a response.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: you placed the incorrect tag on the article section, not seeking to draw folk to the discussion, but instead to water down the section by calling the cited info "unverified".
    As for my response in that page, I (and others) answered your inquiry at least twice. That you didn't like the answer cannot be blamed upon us. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidently, are you really sure that stalking my edits (1) is the best way to make your point? You never posted to Fitna (film) before today. Hmmm. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was not the unverified tag, but the unreliable tag.[[12]]. Is Arcayne really the best judge of my intentions, since he has misquoted me several times as it is?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has misquoted you, except perhaps for yourself, Jojhutton. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for a content/sourcing dispute between the two of you. Why not get input from other editors on the talk page instead? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never brought it here, Gwen; I was just making sure that bad info about me wasn't sitting around uncontested. As for the article discussion, that's what I've been all about. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I was only getting at, if it were me, I'd ask for more input on the talk page. Also, lacking a consensus to have them in the main article, following Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources, there would be nothing untowards about skiving off the more speculative sources to something like John Wilkes Booth (escape speculation) and putting it in the see also section. 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    I tried to get more input on the talk page, but Arcayne would not allow it. That is why I brought it here, because he kept removing a tag that I placed on the section.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Focus, please. The wrong tag was removed. I thought it had been said once or twice before this...Anyway,yes, some input in the article discussion would be splendid. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bedford's actions on Rush Limbaugh

    User:Bedford has reverted a sourced statement three times simply because he does not like it on Rush Limbaugh. The first time he didn't even give an explanation.[13]. The second time he didn't dispute the information, he simply stated he didn't like the person making it.[14] The third time he once again did revert claiming the L.A. Times does not fact check.[15] Limbaugh has claimed Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, yet there is absolutely no evidence of that. In their print edition, A Section, the L.A. Times examined that statement by Limbaugh, saying there was absolutely no basis for his making such a statement. I put this under the appropriate section, with the source to the L.A. Times article, with a rationale, and Bedford has revert three times, edit warring with no valid reason based in any policy or guideline, and with no discussion - despite my bring it up with him on his talk page. I ask for a short block of Bedford for edit-warring since he is a former admin who should know better than to edit-war to remove sourced content. --David Shankbone 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David, you are the one showing ILIKEIT. I haven't broken #RR yet, and don't intend to. I read the article earlier this morning, so I knew all about it. It's an opinion piece, that the writer hoped people would take as fact, which you did. Now that I didn't back down on you,. you try to intimidate me. You didn't even try going to the talk page.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reworded the ill-formatted section heading for neutrality. the skomorokh 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute, doesn't belong here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a content dispute, it's edit-warring, which is an admin issue. The L.A. Times fact checks opinion pieces. Regardless, you aren't disputing that there is no factual basis for Limbaugh to claim Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, you are simply stating that a respected writer reporting that Limbaugh has no basis to make a claim doesn't like Rush Limbaugh. I broached you on your Talk page, and you didn't bother to go to ANY talk page. One does not have to revert 4 times to run afoul of 3RR; regardless, you are edit-warring to keep out factual information - that neither Obama nor ANYONE in his campaign has ever mentioned taking over 401Ks, and Limbaugh claiming that they will - that you simply do not like. You can't provide any sources to back yourself up, so you simply dispute the source, which whether you like it or not, is a reliable source. --David Shankbone 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told, they're talking about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gwen; this is a content dispute because users are edit-warring over whether a particular piece of content ought to be included. Both Bedford and David Shankbone have been edit-warring, and there has been no talkpage discussion. I'm posting this to WP:BLPN. The article may need protecting and warned editors may need to be blocked - in future, but for now no admin involvement is needed. the skomorokh 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree completely. As a former admin, User:Bedford should not just be reverting without explanation to remove content that is factual and sourced. That he reverted three times, despite my approaching him on his Talk page, makes him the edit warrior. This is not how issues are meant to be handled. In the end, Limbaugh is claiming Obama plans to take over people's 401(k)s, and there is absolutely no basis for that assertion. I put this under this "accuracy" section on his article. Bedford is edit-warring to keep it out. That's an admin issue, especially since he is an experienced user who should know better. --David Shankbone 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a discussion now at Talk:Rush_Limbaugh#Obama_and_401Ks. Close and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we could give both editors a 1 days rest so that they could read the news, find current updates on the topic, re-think the statement about the LA Times and its op-ed pieces, and come back tomorrow as awesome, team-building editors :-) -t BMW c- 20:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an abusive way to use blocks, pure and simple. Especially when there is no source to say Democrats/Obama will take away 401(k)s except for conservative commentators. But threatening blocks because there is a dispute is not only poor form, it's dangerous for the viability of the site. --David Shankbone 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring isn't allowed. Y'all are going back and forth a bit too much. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The emotion is deafening, I've yet to see NPoV wording from either "side." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never suggest a block due to a "dispute". To suggest that I am leans horribly towards WP:AGF in its own right. Interestingly enough, most of the same letters appear in the word "disruption", something that is happening to Wikipedia due to edit-warring and other actions,and that I highly recommend blocks for. -t BMW c- 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've bookmarked your diffs for when you run for admin. I find your loose advocacy of blocks to be problematic, and not what most editors want in an admin. Have a nice day. --David Shankbone 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds markedly like a threat to me; that is, publicly noting the intention of keeping a record of contentious comments/actions for future use, with an intent to chill the perceptions of the other party. Don't we, uh, issue warnings and blocks for the likes of that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to this curious guideline/policy? Specifically, the part that says we block people for stating that when we disagree with how they propose blocks to be use, we say we will not support them for admin? Please...it would make fascinating reading. --David Shankbone 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way do you believe Wikipedia:HARASS#Threats to be curious? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way do you think I feel injured by Bwilkins? That's a pretty broad reading of Wikipedia:HARASS#Threats - are you sure you're an admin? I often feel harassed by you, and many people know it, so do you think you should be blocked? What about when you called me a "fairly wretched individual"? Does that deserve a block under WP:NPA? What about your constant involvement in almost any thread I am a party to? Does that fall WP:HARASS? --David Shankbone 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain. While I will endeavour to keep my language neutral in future, I should advise you that I do not care for your eagerness to play victim when it suits you and yet resort to threatening language in other interactions. You may not care to have me point it out, so perhaps it would be best if you didn't indulge in such actions and then I would not feel the need to comment. And who are these "many people"? Lastly (from me in this matter, anyway) is that I often comment at discussions at the admin noticeboards; there is nothing special in me saying stuff here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm letting you know now that you were part of an e-mail discussion between myself, Jimmy Wales and several arbitrators where you pursuit of me and your harassment of me were discussed. Your personal attacks. Your constant refrain of "block him! block him!" and your trolling my talk page. Back off LessHeard, or this is going to end up before ArbCom and I'm a hair away from bringing it there. There's thousands of admins, and you have demonstrated extraordinary personal animus and pursuit of me, and it will be addressed if you don't quit. That's not a threat, it's a promise. Your harassment needs to end now. --David Shankbone 21:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As ever, I invite review of my actions and contributions - and I will edit how and where I feel my abilities are of benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I have not (certainly not recently, and rarely if ever in the past) edited your talkpage and I do not have it watchlisted; I am sanguine regarding your claims of harassment and would be prepared to discuss my very limited interactions with any third party who felt it necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been edit warring and are at the edge of 3rr at Rush Limbaugh. Bwilkins warned you about that and now I'm warning you too. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your second warning noted, Gwen. You're welcome to warn a third time even though nothing has changed since your first. --David Shankbone 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Limbaugh lies all the time. What's special about this particular lie? P.S. I would put Limbaugh's page on my watch list except my computer might get infected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Must confess; this made me laugh out loud: http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/11/09/strange-logic-on-wikipedia--rush-limbaugh-barack-obama-and-the-democrats-taking-your-401k.aspx?ref=rss --Gen. Bedford his Forest 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really want to fuel the fire? -- lucasbfr talk 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Shankbone, first - kudos for looking up my user page and seeing the "administrator someday" userbox. Always good to know that people feel the need investigate me (means I'm doing something right). Thanks also for trying to use it against me. My original comment, although unfortunately misunderstood by you (even we journalists can occasionally be unclear), can be paraphrased as "perhaps both editors need a very short block due to the edit warring and ensuing disruption". I'm not sure how you could have ever read that as me recommending a block because of a dispute - if you looked more closely at my userpage, you would have clearly seen that I spend a lot of time in WP:WQA, and my process of dispute resolution in that forum is clearly spelled out on my user page - I spend a lot of time resolving disputes without blocking. So, let's not go selecting the information we like from sources, okay? Personally, I don't give 2 oz of fecal matter about the topic - I'm pretty sure the world (or at least anyone who matters) knows that 401k's would never be casually taken by the US government. I'm personally surprised that Limmy didn't bring this precious nugget up during the campaign in order to put fear in the voters. The issue is, and always has been, edit-warring and disruption - not content (as you so clearly admitted early on). So, let's cut the invectives, re-think your threats against a co-editor, and as I said in my first post on this topic "come back...as awesome, team-building editors." -t BMW c- 12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we have a rule against linking attack sites here? No, wait, that's only when it's Wikipedia Review. --B (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed for censor

    Resolved
     – Continued disruption, canvassing: short block. seicer | talk | contribs 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidemon should be blocked because I put a reasonable discussion in talk:Barack Obama and it was removed. I made it more polite sounding and asked people not to remove it. Wikidemon removed it.

    Removal of discussion from article talk pages is not permitted. There is a danger when it's done with Obama that censorship may be an issue. If you disagree with the discussion of changing the article, just say so, don't remove it. Removal is disruptive because it blocks discussion.

    Disruption is blockable. 74.174.46.41 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your contributions are telling. Please don't think that starting a section called "presidential lies?" at the Talk:Barack Obama morass is going to be remotely helpful. If you're interested in actually discussing something, go prepared with reliable sources that actually back up any assertion and don't be deliberately provocative. — Scientizzle 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Talk:Barack Obama page is for discussion of the article, not for attacks on Barack Obama. Wikidemon was right to remove it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I was not notified of this discussion) I deleted it because it was primarily an attack on other editors, and it was impossible to separate that from any nugget of a proposal for the article. In doing so I advised the IP that they were welcome to make any constructive suggestion for improving the article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the IP editor started a new thread that also begins with a personal attack, this time on me,[16] which I've had to refactor twice now to stick to the proposal. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong to remove these personal attacks and I'll stop, but on the Obama talk page one has to be fairly firm lest it turn into a free-for-all (see above discussion, for example). Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an attack. He's saying that his comments were removed, and giving the names of the users which did it. I'm not going to revert your reversion of my reversion of your refactoring, since I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't agree with your actions. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a very high threshold for editing other people's contributions on talk pages, and this doesn't even come close to crossing the threshold. looie496 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really. here is a case in point from an article on my watch list. Complaints about other editors have no place on article talk pages, particularly not Barack Obama, which is on article probation. Singling specific editors out like that is a personal attack, and deleting the attack is not editing a talk page comment - it does not change the substance of the proposal one bit. The other option is to delete or close the thread entirely, which would only incite the editor further.Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you are also making a personal attack, since you're singling out a specific editor. I think you need to recognize the distinction between "attack" and "criticism". We get to criticize; we have to criticize. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Wikidemon, but you're being oversensitive. This is not a personal attack and does not justify removal or refactoring as done here. The comment about you was undeniably true, non-offensive, and relevant. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with it IMO. Oren0 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sensitive, firm. I'm not exactly shedding tears over the computer from the insult. The IP editor had made three increasingly disruptive attempts in a row to start the same discussion,[17][18][19] harangued one of the regular editors,[20] and started the lame complaint above before finally saying it in a way that was almost acceptable.[21] That's pretty close to wearing out the welcome. What I deleted was editor-on-editor sniping, phrased as a process request to not delete the discussion. The request got honored - the discussion is ongoing right now. There is absolutely no reason to also preserve a moot, inapt complaint about other editors on the talk page. Spend some time patrolling the Obama article and you'll see why we need to keep the discussion on track and not use the talk page to cry censorship.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What insult? Yes, you are right in objecting (and even removing) to the anon's edits; but doing them under the rubric of "personal attacks" is not helpful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken as a string of successive edits, the anon in short order accused people of editing in bad faith, censorship, being POV pushers, vandalism, and sanitizing the Obama article all because they objected to his pointing out Obama's "lies." You may be right on a technicality that the specific edit was intrinsically some other form of incivility rather than a personal attack - but it's all about the same. Editors who start off so tendentiously on that article usually cause a flame out. Telling them early, firmly, that it is okay to make good faith proposals but not to do battle with other editors, can do some good.Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a horrible suspicion that come inauguration day we're going to see a whole host of "nigga stole my country" style crap, combining the worst excesses of wingnut drivel and redneck bigotry. Maybe this will be the article that pushes us over into the German flagged revisions system. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the IP editor. I have become more and more polite. However, Wikidemon's actions should not be supported. Just because someone has friends on wikipedia or is an administrator, doesn't give them the right to delete reasonable comments that they don't like. Only comments like "obama is a muslim" can be deleted. All other suggestions for article improvment must stay.

    The article is frankly terrible. There is missing important information, some removed by editors who live there and some fluff. We need to look at other encyclopedias and TV documentaries to see what they have. They have some information which is a little negative but negative information is not permitted here. It is quickly deleted. That's bad. I'm not out to smear Obama, in fact I voted for him, but we must neutrally report him, not be his public relations firm.

    Wikidemon must be blocked for about 12 hours or a day. Otherwise, I will interpret it as permission to delete one or two talk page comments which I oppose. At the least, a warning should be placed by an administrator on Wikidemon's page. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your ultimatum is unwelcome, and will be roundly ignored. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)Exactly, Jpg. IP, please don't make threats to disrupt to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikidemon's deleted other talk page comments, like the one by Neurolenis. This is disruptive. I am giving up because people are not fair. At the very least, an administrator should politely warn Wikidemon not to delete talk page comments. I will say no more about this but appeal to people's fairness to act nicely and don't play favorites. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting comments is one thing, but I would like to request that other people's talk page comments never be revised except to fix formatting problems or add signatures. When I read a talk page comment, I want to be confident that I'm reading what the author wrote, not somebody else's idea of what they should have written. looie496 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Robot programs filling in missing signatures is an accepted practice. Re-aligning indentions is considered OK as long as it does not deceive. But altering the content is strictly verboten. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone has done that. Discussions have been closed, archived and deleted, headings retitled, redundant material consolidated or deleted, and less often, offensive comments (blatant incivilities, accusations, racist rants, etc.) have been stricken or redacted). Many non-admin editors and some admins do that, many times per day, on the Obama talk page by way of keeping order. There are few close cases. It's mostly blatant stuff. Usually the offending editor goes away or calms down. Occasionally they start edit warring or upping the stakes, and usually get blocked quickly. Every once in a while one of the disruptive editors finds a meta-page like this one and files a complaint. Standard article patrol stuff. Wikidemon (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that personal attacks or BLP violations are also subject to removal or censoring, though not manipulation that alters the content meaningfully. More generally, anything that does not further improvement of the article is a candidate for removal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New problem, same article talk page

    I don't know what Wikidemon did but a similar thing happened to me.

    I made comments about improving the article. It was completely neutral. It asked whether we should keep the political positions section static or adjust it for inevitable changes in positions (all presidents change some positions).

    This is clearly not anti-Obama. Yet is was removed. An IP removed it.

    Obama is clearly controversial but article talk pages shouldn't be removed especially mine which asks simply policy questions on how to deal with the article.

    I make a motion that the talk page of the article be placed under special probation of blocking any editor that removes article talk page comments. The only exception would be clear and unmistakable vandalism. If it is not clear vandalism, then the deleted must be blocked. ImNotObama (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your time would be better served providing links to the accusations you're making. If I recall, you three times started a section titled "Presidential lies". Grsz11 →Review! 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, not that one, but still. Grsz11 →Review! 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ImNotObama is a brand new account that, as its first edit tested the terms of article probation (by haranguing editors as a group and accusing them of ulterior/POV motives) in favor of Godwin's Law[22] and has twice started a pointless vote. Conducting the vote on article length and on "eliminat[ing] all crap"[23] is the account's sole activity here so far. The first time it was summarily deleted, apparently by an IP account. The second one is active now but will probably be closed. Also, the attempt to tag this thread "unresolved" seems disruptive - I would remove it but inasmuch as it's a complaint against me (however bogus) I'll refrain. Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued problem

    One big problem is Wikidemon's attitude and refusal to admit that he is the problem. When that other Obama editor complained, Wikidemon simply attacks him by saying he's a new editor and uses Godwin's Law.

    That other user seems to be talking about article length. This is a valid topic of discussion.

    Wikidemon is not assuming good faith and attacking users. What's of more concern is that valid discussion on Obama's talk page is being removed. This is disruptive.

    Administrators should decide the following:

    If you don't like the discussion, you may remove it.

    1. Oppose74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't like the discussion, you should either ignore it or express your opinion in a calm manner and not remove comments.

    1. Support74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If I am attacked further, this just shows that there is something fishy going on with Obama. If people act calmly and rationally, then this shows that Wikipedia is good in this kind of matter. Are there any reasonable administrators around or has Wikipedia degenerated? 74.174.46.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot one:
    Editors that continually refuse to accept that consensus is not going their way should be given a final warning and then blocked for disruption.
    1. --barneca (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also forgotten by some: Threats are against the spirit of Wikipedia. The discussion and vote above should receive the complete support of all administrators. If it doesn't, we really have a problem because it shows that deletion of valid discussion is ok, as long as you are an administrator.

    The sane way to resolve this would be for an administrator to simply say "Deletion of comments in the article talk page should normally not be done. Please try to work with each other". Instead, many are attacking me. This doesn't make Wikipedia look good. With this comment, I will no longer participate in this discussion because it is clear to me that some administrators do not participate in good customer service or practice a friendly manner. That's too bad for Wikipedia and for themselves, but that's life. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tired of this, short block for continued disruption, IP hopping. Make do on your comments that you will "no longer participate" (as you stated previously once before) and stop canvassing various talk pages and forums. seicer | talk | contribs 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was lame. I might not agree with the guy, but posting here about a perceived problem isn't disruption, and IP hopping is not blockable (dynamic IP's). Arkon (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm playing for consensus here. He was given a final notice, which he disregarded and then continued to canvass. There is no 'perceived problem' on our end; only to editors that plug their ears and refuse to accept consensus or canvass until they receive acceptable answer. seicer | talk | contribs 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the phrase "Wikidemon's attitude and refusal to admit that he is the problem" is certainly more than uncivil, and is not conducive to solving an issue. -t BMW c- 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading DYK

    The DYK about Obama

    ... that U.S. president-elect Barack Obama delivered his acceptance speech (pictured) from behind 2 inches (51 mm) of bulletproof glass?

    is very misleading and should be amended or taken down ASAP. I've improved accuracy to verifiable fact in this edit. Moreover, the hook is a barely concealed copyvio of the Daily Mail source. Says there: "[...] Barack Obama's victory speech was delivered from behind two-inch thick bullet proof glass." Please act quickly. Everyme 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, WP:ERRORS is the place to raise issues with main page showcased content. Can an admin respond please? the skomorokh 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not on the main page any longer, but it's noteworthy that the user who was credited with the DYK reverted to an inaccurate version. Apparently, he didn't study the cited sources too closely. Also, I'd like to know who passed that DYK. Everyme 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Politizer (talk · contribs) modified and approved the hook in this edit. the skomorokh 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but Politzer is not an admin and didn't select the hook for the mainpage. It really upsets me though. Info like this, guaranteed to earn the article several thousand hits, should be double and triple checked. Everyme 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors select hooks, admins move them to the next updates. I'm not quite sure what your problem with this hook is, as it matches the wording of the refs rather closely. Verifiability vs. truth or selective use of sources? the skomorokh 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neomewga

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

    I honestly don't know what to think here.. well, that would be a lie. As far as I can tell, this user appears to think that WP is like myspace, despite the many times I have warned him using TW that such a thing is against policy.

    As far as I can tell, to this day, this user has not made one useful contribution. As far as I can tell, about 95% of his contributions have been to his own userspace. The other contributions could hardly be labeled as such. His contributions aren't too large, and it hardly takes up the space of a page(from viewing at 500 edits a time). Opinions on this matter? This user is obviously not here to help the project. He seems to be treating WP like a blog.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 12:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given him a final warning. This has been going on for awhile now. If he doesn't do a 180 pronto, I'd suggest giving him a lengthy timeout.--Crossmr (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he just blanked that warning as well as notification of the discussion. He doesn't appear to be here doing anything construction so I would recommend an administrator block him and see if that gets his attention.--Crossmr (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanking would be tacit acceptance of the warning. If he re-violates, give him a little rest. Let's WP:AGF for a few seconds before blocking right away ... maybe he got the message? -t BMW c- 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess what he just did? He reverted his blanking of his user page.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    userpage, not talkpage.--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    or, it could be an attempt to bury the warning so he doesn't have to look at it. I can blank a page without reading it or caring whats on it. This person has been blanking talk page comments since august. He also blanked his user page at the same time as that warning but came back 7 hours later and unblanked his user page to restore the problem edits. I don't see any evidence of "getting it".--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, I feel the same.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone going to do anything?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Patience... he's not out blowing up articles, so if it takes a bit, its not too terrible.--Crossmr (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But he is using WP as a blog.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 03:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so if it takes someone a few hours or something to get around to it, its not the end of the encyclopedia. To this point he's only restored some content, if he starts doing a lot more I imagine he will be blocked a lot faster.--Crossmr (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thank you for your time and the clarification.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 04:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review please

    I recently issued the tenth block against Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for incivility after following a trail of edits from this AIV report. The editor appears to be skilled at making accusations of impropriety at those that disagree with him or her. I'd like some additional eyes to review the block and its length. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    some further info Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer closed Oct 21, 2007 with a 12 month restriction, expired 20 October 2008 about 20 days ago there were a number of blocks during the period and 2 of the entries in the block log were to enable the user to participate in discussion including the abrcom case. Gnangarra 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the arbitration also mentioned incivility as an issue. Since Bharatveer`s pervious block was also for 96 hours due to civility issues, I wonder if this block should be longer. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, seeing as this is the first block post-restrictions, I'm willing to accept it was a momentary lapse on his part and that a 96 hour block will serve as a firm deterrent to remind him that the civility and persona attacks policies continue to apply, even without an arbcom restriction to that effect. MBisanz talk 14:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    looking at his talk pagehistory there appears to be a number of level 4 warning issued by ip address on the 9, 10, and 11. These warnings dont look justified, Bharatveer reverted once on the 10th, and once on the 11th though twice on the 9th to the article Binayak Sen and with each he also tried to engage in discussion on the talk page about the issues. IMHO I'm not sure the block is warranted even though Bharatveer has already acknowledge and accepted[24] it. Gnangarra 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add an additional question here since it is related and I can't seem to find the answer anywhere: What would be the process for extending the arbcomm remedies (since this one just expired)? Would it have to go back to the full process? I've been thinking about this and, after 9 blocks, I think we have a chronic problem here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Go to RFAR and ask the arbs to open a motion to extend the remedies on the main requests page. No need for a full second case. Or, alternatively, just ask them to ban him. That works as well. It's not as if he's a particularly constructive contributor anyway, and he causes a lot of grief. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have filed a motion to extend the restrictions on Bharatveer at WP:RFAR. Please comment there. Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    209.85.138.136 (talk · contribs) an open proxy?

    Resolved

    The {{sharedip}} notice says so, but I haven't been able to confirm it in the whois stuff. Can someone who knows more about proxies than me take a look? Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    rDNS is pr-out-f136.google.com. Forward and reverse lookups match. --GraemeL (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    {{sharedip}} isn't supposed to mean it's an open proxy, is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No but in this case it's explicit. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the Google wireless transcoder proxy. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ACORN again. This needs to finally stop.

    Overview

    Several accounts that have repeatedly come up as likely socks, disruptive, and abusive, and have acquired histories of blocks for bad behavior, have descended upon the ACORN article again. The accounts in question are:

    These accounts have long since drained all of their allotment of assumed good faith. They have been consistent, persistent, abusive single-purpose accounts, "vote" in a group together (whenever they're not blocked), attack other editors endlessly, and when their behavior finally provokes harsh responses from other editors, they immediately hide behind WP:CIVIL. This is all on a talk page for an article that is currently locked. They are abusive, and useful discussions of content have become impossible. And while proving sockpuppetry without a shadow of a doubt is impossible due to the use of proxy and dynamic IP addresses, there is strong circumstantial evidence of it.

    Addendum (by LotLE×talk): Gooddamon's report is accurate and helpful. I would add that Curious bystander is also almost certainly a sockpuppet here, who shows up exactly when WorkerBee7/Kossack4Truth gets blocked (here and earlier on various Obama articles); Marx0728 is, I think, probably a distinct person, but one obviously in off-wiki correspondence with the other accounts and hence perhaps a meat puppet.

    Evidence

    First, the history. I would like to direct administrative attention to the long sequence of incident reports about each user.

    1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Personal_attacks_and_disruption_by_WorkerBee74 - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked for 21 days. Note my comment near the end, with additional evidence of yet another sock.
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#SPAs_edit_warring_on_ACORN_article - Result: WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive blocked. 300wackerdrive was blocked for 24 hours, while WorkerBee74 was blocked for a week.
    3. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 - Suspected sockpuppetry. Closing admin said: "Socking looks likely, but I'm not going to block anyone for month-old violations."
    4. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination) - Suspected sockpuppetry. While the results were inconclusive due to the aforementioned IP address issues, administrators suggested filing an incident report if abusive behavior persisted. This is that incident report.
    5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Once_again:_topic_ban_of_user:Kossack4Truth_from_Obama_pages_for_review - Result: Topic ban for Kossack4Truth, which may or may not have just expired (I'm honestly not sure).
    6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page_again - Result: WorkerBee74 basically told to cut it out.
    7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Kossack4Truth_disruption_on_the_Barack_Obama_talk_page - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 72 hours, 4 month community ban initially brought up.
    8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive444#WorkerBee74_again - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked for a week.
    9. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth - Checkusers that were inconclusive, but contained evidence of use of similar IP addresses.
    10. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page.2C_yet_again - No result that I could see, but obvious report of edit warring.
    11. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated_incivility_by_User:WorkerBee74_.28also_a_SPA.29 - Incivility.
    12. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 - Concerns of sockpuppetry
    13. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive75#User:WorkerBee74_reported_by_User:Brothejr_.28Result:_72_hours.29 - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked 72 hours
    14. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive74#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 48 hours
    15. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Grsz11_.28Result:_4_days.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 4 days
    16. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_reported_by_User:Kossack4Truth_.28Result:_No_violation_.29 - An example of one of many punitive incident reports filed by this group of editors against other editors in good standing.
    17. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 24 hours. I strongly suspect the bad report against Lulu of the Lotus Eaters resulted from this report.

    In the last few days, all three accounts have descended upon the ACORN article, and prematurely declared consensus for a new version of a section of text. It started with Kossack4Truth's laughable re-entry to the article, followed immediately with an attack on other editors as "bogus" and "tendentious". Shortly thereafter, he "transcluded" WorkerBee74's vote of support for the text, as if the fact that WorkerBee74 is currently blocked makes no difference. Shortly thereafter, this editor just back from topic-ban decides consensus has been achieved, and requests the edit be incorporated into the article by an admin.

    Now, along comes 300wackerdrive, fresh off a block, immediately vote-stacking. It degenerated from there.

    These three editors are single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. They are probably socks, though possibly meatpuppets as well. They have long since passed the point where any one of them should have been banned for their behavior, regardless of the behavior of both other accounts. Together, they make editing an exhausting and unproductive endeavor. --GoodDamon 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional socks: Since Curious bystander and Marx0728 are now confirmed socks, I would like to formally add them to this report. --GoodDamon 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I'm just trying to learn from more experienced editors. When I saw Wikidemon closing discussion threads abruptly at Talk:Barack Obama, I did the same. When I saw other editors moving comments around at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, it occurred to me that an admin who previously had no experience with the page may respond to the {{editprotected}} notice. So I started moving comments to make it easier for an unfamiliar admin to determine whether consensus has been reached. It just made sense to me. I would like to see how I'm "vote stacking," or making personal attacks, or doing any of the other things that GoodDamon has accused me of doing. GoodDamon, please post diffs that support this accusation, or apologize. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, "Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?" GoodDamon has already made that suggestion on WB's User Talk page. [25] I'm sure that some who read this are getting tired of seeing the same names on all of these incident reports. I encourage you to fight the urge to "just ban them all" and examine the evidence. Remember that WP:SSP says, "Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other." The editors that LotLE and GoodDamon are complaining about are regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above comment by 209.221.240.193 is a confirmed sock of banned user BryanfromPalatine whose extensive career can be read about here [[26]]. It may be of interest to people who know more than me about these matters. The sock notice on that IP userpage was recently removed. I put it back. Someone using that IP was very angry at me on that talk page for restoring it. This IP seems well versed with the goings on of the Acorn talk page despite never having edited there. regardsBali ultimate (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very angry"? A little bit annoyed, perhaps. The sock notice is from December 2006, and this is an IP address shared by over 17,000 people, so it does seem inappropriate to me. A review of the many links above that GoodDamon has posted, and the recent editing history of the article Talk page and your User Talk pages, reveals that the people he complains about have been engaged in content disputes not only with him and with LotLE, but also with you. So my earlier remark about spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failing to mention mitigating evidence applies to you as well. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been wondering about these accounts' possible relationship to BryanFromPalatine. I wouldn't be too surprised if 300wacker, WorkerBee74, and K4T were all BryanFromPalatine socks; even if they aren't, each account has run afoul of many policies, including WP:BATTLE, and I see no reason to keep any of them around. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that 300wacker and K4T have recently returned from blocks, and WB is currently blocked. If any of you can post any diffs from any of them since returning from their blocks that violate Wikipedia policy, then I'd support indef blocks for those offenders. But when following K4T's contribs around, I happened to find this little gem at User talk:MastCell by an uninvolved admin, User:EdJohnston: "Nobody asked my opinion, but since ACORN is still full-protected until 15 November, I don't see any urgency. Though Kossack4Truth has shown up on the article's talk page, due to the protection he can't do anything to the article. My personal opinion is that further misbehavior by K4T should lead to an indef. Since returning from his block all he has done is express his curiously emphatic views at the ACORN talk page, and make a few innocuous edits here and there."[27] With that unbiased and uninvolved admin's opinion in hand, let's insist on proof of real policy violations before we go off blocking people. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edjohnston made that comment on November 9th, the day K4T's block ended. Since, on the Acorn talk page, k4t has acted on behalf of banned user (and suspected related sock) workerbee; has moved around other editors comments in, to me at least, a confusing manner (he also doesn't leave edit summaries); he has declared consensus prematurely, and sought insertion of contested information into the article by admins despite being told there was in fact no consensus; refered to the arguments of those disagreeing as "being shot down in flames"; characterized the arguments of others in a content dispute as "bogus" and "tendentious;" called those who pointed out he may be in violation of his Obama-related article topic ban as "dicks;" said he was at the talk page to rescue the article from "its current fucked up condition;" characterizes wording prefered by other editors as "weaseling" and "parsing;" and described other editors efforts as "tendentious" at least 5 separate times in one talk page commentary alone. Again, that's in two days alone. He's been a busy boy.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to sit this one out so I'll just add this diff without comment for now.[28] Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wikidemon, I confess. I was advising people having disputes with you to "Be extremely polite and use Wikipedia policies against" you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You were advising an editor on the verge of a block for edit warring, incivility, etc. - in a thread about his disruption of the Obama talk page - to "use Wikipedia policies against them" and contact you off-Wiki about it. Them, being "this group of editors", a cabal who you imagine to be conspiring by email "to file complaints and get us blocked and topic banned" --i.e. me. That looks like a violation of the Obama topic ban, and also canvassing someone to wikigame.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being polite, and encouraging someone on the verge of a block to obey the rules and be polite. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By mucking about Barack Obama in violation of a topic ban to recruit an editor to do battle against me? Combined with your comments below, and directly to that editor, regarding my supposedly conspiring against you, I don't think so.Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes! I see that Kossack4truth has edited the Talk page of ACORN 22 times in the last two days, and is now trying to declare victory in a poll where the count of votes may influence the outcome of an {{editprotected}} request. He has been moving comments around on the Talk page. My opinion has changed, and I would now Support a topic ban of K4T from both the ACORN article and its Talk page. Since we are still not clear whether he is a sock, and he creates a large POV wake wherever he goes, an extremely careful participation on Talk would be excused. No way is this behavior acceptable. I assume that K4T's interest in ACORN is due to the Obama connection, but that would be tolerable if he stayed within limits. He has not. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now noticing that I had proposed any further misbehavior should result in an indef, and this is misbehavior, I now recommend an indef block for User:Kossack4Truth. (He is one of those 'last chance' guys, where people had proposed to offer him one more chance. I think he just used it up). EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind if I say something, Ed? Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (<--) There is really no single diff I can post regarding these 5 editors (or 1 editor, who knows!). All I can say is if anyone spends any amount of time on the articles talk page...a clear pattern becomes plainly visible: POV pushing, vote stacking, comment moving extravaganza and pretty much every one of the accounts has an extensive block history for abusiveness. I recommend introducing Blocky McBlockerson, 7 days minimum, on each one. That way, consensus will be allowed time to develop at the least. In the mean time, I have my own problems on the Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 page. These guys just come out of the woodwork somehow... DigitalNinja 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus has already been allowed an enormous amount of time to develop for this proposed edit: 11 days. Wikidemon has !voted in favor of it. DigitalNinja !voted in favor of it. GoodDamon also !voted in favor of it at first. It had a 9-3 majority until GoodDamon changed his !vote. As I said on the article Talk page, I've never seen an edit that was more thoroughly discussed, vetted, masticated and ruminated. Three pages of archives have been created to accommodate this discussion of One. Freakin. Edit. What we have here is two editors, LotLE and Bali ultimate, who are obstructing the formation of consensus on the page. Constant baiting and provocation, in the form of false accusations of sockpuppetry, false charges of misrepresentation of sources, nitpicking about the tense of verbs in a quotation from a reliable source (for the love of Gaia), and generally mean-spirited and uncooperative behavior are their hallmark.
    On the Talk page of a far more high-profile article with dozens of participants, Wikidemon has moved entire sections around, closing and archiving discussions prematurely. No repercussions for Wikidemon. I'm just trying to move the process along by following his example. Regarding the use of the word "dicks," I was directing these editors' attention to WP:DBAD, which is enshrined in Wikipedia lore. (Notice how Bali ultimate mentioned "dicks" without mentioning WP:DBAD. "Spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failure to mention mitigating circumstances." Spot on, I'd say.)
    I transcluded WB74's !vote because, months ago, User:Noroton was kind enough to transclude mine. There were no objections at that time.
    Otherwise, I have consistently referred to edits, not editors, unlike the complaining editors here who are going out of their way to provoke us. I will also point out that MastCell, the admin who has volunteered as parole officer on this topic ban, specifically authorized me to edit ACORN; and despite my repeated posting of MastCell's authorizing diff on the article's Talk page,[29] these people relentlessly repeated that I had no right to edit there. Consider the poisonous environment these people have created. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, brother. Not again. It always ends up with some accusation against me for being on troll patrol. Wikidemon (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was just following your good example, Wikidemon. You handle the Talk page at another article with a forklift and people seem to love you for it. You're an experienced editor. What better goal in my Wikipedia existence could I have, than to model my Talk page management skills after yours? Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by my assessment. All this sound and fury, but the edit histories of these accounts, and their endlessly repetitious behavior, speak for themselves. I don't see a need, at least for myself, to respond any further to these attempts to turn this incident report in on itself. --GoodDamon 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry confirmed

    • Note Checkuser results show Curious bystander and Marx0728 are the same person but probably different from the others, although from the same city. 300wackerdrive edits exclusively from a workplace previously associated with BryanfromPalatine; Kossack4Truth edits exclusively from a residential IP in the same city, and WorkerBee74 edits exclusively from a Sprint PCS mobile device of some kind. Thatcher 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    could someone notify these "users" on their talk pages or put notices up on their userpages? Not sure of the ettiquitte on this myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. If you review the ACORN talk page, 300wackerdrive supports Marx0728's proposals with near-exclusivity, as does Kossack4Truth. The Curious bystander sock has recently appeared there to vote-stack. Purely from the fact that Marx0728 and Curious bystander are now known to be the same person and being used to support each other, both of those accounts should be blocked immediately. Now, I've noticed that Kossack4Truth doesn't seem to edit at the same time of day as Marx0728. Again, I can only go on behavioral patterns and editing history, but it seems pretty obvious that Kossack4Truth is the account the puppetmaster uses while at home. I'm new to this BryanfromPalatine character, but if the behavioral patterns are the same, then we're probably dealing with a puppetmaster who has grown savvy enough to work some accounts from home, some from work, and some from his mobile device. Sigh... Seems like so much work just to push a POV onto an online encyclopedia. --GoodDamon 14:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, you're right, this looks totally like a savvy sockmaster, specially the one editing only from a mobile device (he can afford an internet-enabled device and connection, where editing is imcomfortable, but he can't afford a internet-enabled PC where typing and viewing pages is massively easier? Not even an internet café once in a while? Seriously? Lol) and the non-overlapping of home/work connections. This, plus the WP:DUCK argument, plus the POV disruption, should be enough to block all 5 of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I think about the literally thousands of hours in talk page discussions going over and over the same contentious material, I'm frankly disgusted if it turns out that this was caused by a group of collaborating socks and meats. What a terrible waste. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My favorite aspects of these high-profile AN/I's are:
    1. abusive editors accuse other editors of not assuming good faith.
    2. abusive editors accuse regular editors of "trolling" them.
    3. abusive editors turn out to be socks.
    4. Before the end of it, Wikidemon's name gets dragged into the situation; regardless if he was involved or not.
    5. Blocky McBlockerson comes out to play and life resumes as normal for a few short days.
    It would really be nice to simply block these troublesome accounts. It's impossible to build a good article when their around pushing their agenda. In this case, I think ignore all rules applies towards pro-actively blocking all their/his accounts for the good of the project, it's editors, and the articles hindered from being approved. DigitalNinjaWTF 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, all 5 accounts need to be blocked for any movement forward in this articles to take place IMO, and the fact they all have strong evidence of being socks. DigitalNinjaWTF 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not get too hasty here. First, my name isn't Bryan. Second, the editing trails of CB and Marx are entirely separate with the sole exception of ACORN. Marx edits random articles apparently, while CB focuses on gay and lesbian issues. I think they are more likely separate people with the same IP address, possibly a university or public library such as the Chicago library system. The accounts were created weeks apart, and stayed on their separate editing trails for several months before their paths finally crossed at ACORN, so they're not meatpuppets either. By the way, the IP address edits above were from my supervisor and his name isn't Bryan, either, but his comment that over 17,000 people share this IP address is accurate. Third, looking at the Bryan edit history, he showed an inordinate amount of interest in Free Republic, which none of us have touched, and no interest in Barack Obama, gay and lesbian issues, or ACORN. All are encouraged to look at the differences. It's true we all appear to be from the Chicago area which may explain why we're interested in Barack Obama. About 10 million other people are also from the Chicago area. Are you going to block all of them pro-actively? 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If they make the same POV pushing, vote-stacking, and WP:BATTLEing that you guys did, then, yes. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Look, I'm not saying I disagree with your positions, I actually do agree (well, to a more neutral extent). However, AN/I is expressly designed to comment on editors. You know that yourself, the Marx guys, CB, and WB74 have all been extremely relentless. The proper thing to do isn't to beat your point into the ground then get uncivil and/or make consensus impossible. Instead, write out a compromise, then the other team will counter, and re-compromise. Eventually, you've learned a little more about their positions, and they've agreed to something you can live with. I constantly have disagreements with editors (especially GoodDamon), but I also respect them and their positions, which makes them, by nature, more willing to listen to my positions and vice versa. Kindness, civility, and less emotion towards the subject is the fastest path to consensus and wikihappiness.
    I only recommended a 7 day block (expect for WB74, who is already on a 21 day block...don't know what to do about him), regardless the outcome I think you should consider working on a few non-political articles (or better yet, create some of your own) and even asking the folks your having disagreements with for help. That way, they can see the good faith you show and before you know it some mutual respect might even develop. Lastly, WB74 has expressed his grief in not being able to comment on this AN/I via has talk page here. I personally think his block should remain as his comments here would lead to nothing but a prolonged discussion and frustration for others. DigitalNinjaWTF 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for that at least. But it seems what you're saying is that we're not allowed to get into content disputes, and that if someone disagrees with us, we're just supposed to cave in because we're all from Chicago, and I happen to work for the same massive corporation as BryanFromPalantine? And whenever LotLE and Bali Ultimate get nasty, we're supposed to respond with sweetness and light? I suggest that what's missing here is civility parole for all concerned. Many of the editors commenting here appear to believe that K4T was under civility parole but, try as I might, I find no evidence whatsoever that anyone told him about it. I suggest six months' civility parole for the five editors mentioned, plus LotLE, Bali Ultimate, Scjessey and Wikidemon ... because if you impose civility parole on one side, the other side will see it as carte blanche to increase their baiting and hectoring. This civility parole is explicitly intended to prohibit any comments about any editor's conduct on any article Talk page or User Talk page, and to include, but not be limited to the terms "Obama fanboy," "Obama campaign volunteer," "cabal," "sock," "sockpuppet," or "meatpuppet." The proper venues for such complaints are this noticeboard, WP:AN3 and WP:SSP. Both sides need to tone it down. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I always get dragged into this - every time someone a report involving any of these editors they use the occasion to accuse me of nonsense and blame me for their own behavior, even in this case when I'm editing on a completely different article. Saying that they only did it because I taunted or incited them, or that things are rigged because I get away with stuff and they don't, has been such a routine over so many months it must be part of the meatpuppeting. The difference is that I and others are holding the line against disruption, and they are the ones disrupting. Dealing with a swarm of repeatedly blocked and banned uncivil, edit warring, wikigaming sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, or like minded POV pushers, or whatever this group is, does not imply tit-for-tat sanctions against the long-term legitimate editors who they have decided to battle against. There are not two sides to this. There is no legitimate question of anyone else's behavior here but theirs. Leave me out of it, please. I was patrolling the Obama article, which needed a lot of help just before and after the election, and only made a few passing comments on the ACORN talk page that this report is supposedly about.Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you haven't noticed, WD, but I am cheerfully submitting myself to the same civility parole, under the same conditions. You should as well. If you have any complaints about my conduct or anyone else's, you can make them on this noticeboard, WP:AN3 or WP:SSP. Making them on article Talk pages and User Talk pages poisons the well. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have noticed, and your misbehavior should not subject the editors you antagonize to sanctions. I have also noticed that checkuser has apparently found that you are using a sockpuppet account, and are likely a blocked user who has done this repeatedly in the past. I haven't been the one doing the outing so your complaint is with someone else, but it's preposterous to say that sockpuppet accounts have a right to keep their account pages free of notices, or not to be spotted on the pages they are gaming. There's not much else to say under the circumstances.Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your perspective, but if they are all the same person, which I think is pretty obvious now, a 7 day block is not sufficient. When you are dealing with a POV-pusher who is so firmly convinced he knows the truth that it becomes perfectly acceptable to that person to run multiple accounts and pretend to be different people who all miraculously join together whenever one's arguments go sour, that person cannot be reasoned with or coached. That person will engage in long-term abuse, and attempt to overcome blocks, because even a day of not being able to push the truth is unacceptable to him. That person will not stop until forced to, and allowing such users to return results in more unnecessary drama and work for everyone else. We -- and when I say "we" I do not mean "me and my sockpuppets" -- are under no obligation to put up with this any further. And now that I've had a chance to review BryanfromPalpatine and that account's history, I think it's overwhelmingly obvious this is no more than the return of a talented puppetmaster. --GoodDamon 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SO, on marc and curious, at the very least one of those accounts have to go, right? As i understand it the checkuser came back positive? As for the claims that one of these socks edits on LBGT issues, well, there's been a transparent effort to make it look that way -- that account pushes commas around on lgbt articles. Marx pushes commas around in other types of articles. Kossack for truth claims to be a daily kos left-winger (despite exclusively pursuing a right-wing political agenda) etc... This puppetmaster (i admit there might be two working in concert at this point) as laughing at all of us thanks to his success in gaming the system. Remedial action drags on, he gets another flight of socks on the launching bad, and whoosh...Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're from Chicago. Barack Obama is also from Chicago, and ACORN and its sister organizations such as Project Vote maintain a strong presence here. Does it surprise anyone that the five of us edit articles about Chicago related topics? 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we both agree that blocking should be involved. However, I can't in good conscience recommend an indef block on someone that may not be a sock. However, I do think a long-term block and/or topic ban on WB74, and CB and Marx0728 indef block as abusive socks is perfectly acceptable. 7 days on the rest of them is short, however, I think it will be effective. My reasoning; just within range of being justifiable in the eyes of the users involved to wait around and think about their actions without creating new socks, especially since they'll be spotted and figured out pretty quickly. I'm completely against the use of socks and I personally learned a lesson to that respect. Note my edit history and block log, over a year ago I was blocked for one week using socks to vandalize. In reality, it very well should have been an indef block according to policy, however, User:WJBscribe in his own judgment decided on 7 days. After I was blocked, I went months without even editing and was able to think long and hard about how I feel about this project and the good dedicated editors bring by building something millions use on a daily basis to improve their lives. I have to reflect that same level of optimism that if one questionable editor can be guided to become a value to the community, it's well worth the effort involved. I hate to use myself as an example because I fear it makes me look bad in front of other editors I've come to respect, however thought I'd share my perspective. That being said, the community has every right and is well advised to consider long-term blocks/bans in this case. DigitalNinjaWTF 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ninja Why do you think 7 days will work when we're probably talking about the same guy who, if we're right, has amassed dozens of blocks since 2006? Even if not connected to this user, when does the death penalty come out for a user like K4T? He's already on his 2nd or 3rd "last chance." More last chances just encourage more gaming. Obviously, you got hot-headed once and learned something. But it didn't take you long. This has been going on not for weeks or months but for years once one looks at the BryanfromPalatine stuff. Of course, nothing will prevent the creation of new socks... but if the guy reforms and edits like an adult, no one will ever know or care he's a ban evader. And if he misbehaves again, he will be caught very quickly. At minimum, let's make him start over, since it will be easier to prove sock-puppetry via two or three or four new accounts (all of whom suddenly develop a passionate new interest in acorn the moment they log in to wikipedia) then via his established habit of using existing accounts and new socks. These socks have reduced my involvement in wikipedia from a productive one to a defensive one. I'm sure i'm not alone in this.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it is if conclusive evidence of sharing the same IP is found, along with a pattern in their edits; indef block. Further, I think you suggested the point I was getting at earlier but only clearer; make them start over. If we do that, they'll be easy to stop, we know their location, ISP, etc, so I have no problem with that. In reality, I don't have any issues at all. I'm just reluctant at indef blocking someone who may be better served (and thus better serve the project) via alternative actions. The primary reason is because they'll just go off getting new accounts but this time with a personal vendetta as you said. Ultimately, I agree with your reasoning all around. DigitalNinjaWTF 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting an arbitrary length of time for a block in not necessary. There is already a sensible "escalating block length" mechanism in place. Proven socks should get an indefinite block (as per normal), but anyone else should only be blocked with a length of time that considers their existing block history. Contrary to DigitalNinja's experience, the editors being discussed immediately returned to their troublesome behavior patterns, indicating lengthier blocks are necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Marx has never been blocked. He only crossed paths once with CB, on an article related to Chicago. Proof of socking is inconclusive. They share an IP address. Thatcher didn't even say that WB74 is from Chicago, only that he edits from a Sprint PCS mobile device; and upon reviewing a previous SSP on him, it's clear that he's not from the Chicago area. Since returning from a block, I've done my best to edit in a polite and constructive manner. I've learned my lesson like Digital Ninja. K4T has been pushy (if you don't like him) or assetive (if you like him). But I continue to believe that civility parole all around would resolve this. Scjessey, you continue to get warning notices on your User Talk page, and not just from the five of us; you get warnings from multiple different editors. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen you disruptive little man: According to Thatcher, check user was conclusive that marx and curious are operated by the same user. They should both be blocked already. Your current guise's history of disruption and gaming (irrespective of your abusive use of other accounts) should likewise have you blocked already. If it was up to me, you'd all be summarily tossed into the brianfrompalatine block log, which has had dozens of socks blocked to date, with sadly no effect on your (the actual persons) behaviour. You've found wikipedia's weak spot -- its slow consensus-oriented dispute resolution mechanisms. Congratulations on wasting all our time (i suspect the real reason you're here is for the drama, rather than the political agenda).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to contact Thatcher and raise the possibility, after looking at their disparate edit histories, that Marx and CB are two people who share an IP address. Let's see what he has to say in response. In the meantime, please try to restrain your venom. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Scjessey, you continue to get warning notices on your User Talk page, and not just from the five of us; you get warnings from multiple different editors."
    What does that have to do with anything? My conduct is not in question here, and I have not been accused of sock or meat activity. I even publish my IP address on my user page. I've received few warnings and only a single block (plus one incorrectly applied block after wikigaming by User:CENSEI, another one to add to this rogues gallery). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For anyone who would like to compare the editing behavior of these accounts to BryanfromPalatine: BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The modus operandi, the POV being pushed, the disingenuous and laughable claims of being a left-winger from several of the socks, the mannerisms, the specific misspellings, the same physical location... Boy, if this isn't all the same puppetmaster, it's his twin. --GoodDamon 18:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. This is why I hate my involuntary tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It's amazing how similiar their "I'm a liberal", "I have left-wing agenda" while pushing right-wing POV is. I support blocks all around. DigitalNinjaWTF 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, 'Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?' " Well said. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the argument chiming out of all the sock accounts - the accusation that all the ANI incidents, blocks, edit warring, etc., is a plot by a cabal of editors to set them up for false accusations. Meanwhile completely misrepresenting the current incident as a content dispute between two POV camps. There is a single complaining editor and a number of other editors and admins who have weighed in. Of course the people here have tangled with this puppetmaster before - he's railed against a few dozen legitimate long-time editors on a wide range of articles, and he's sucked several of those editors into this latest report. It's him against Wikipedia, not him against a cabal.Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would say "hey guys, any chance that the IP's are so similar because they all edit through a corporate firewall", but I don't believe that is the case. I say this because in a company that requires/affords that type of firewall, you would be hard-pressed to find a few random editors who all have a penchant for editing the same articles with the same style of writing - unless, of course, they were all editing articles about their company (which would then be COI). -t BMW c- 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just caught that 300Wacker and the "supervisor" he admiringly quotes, with whom he shares similar writing styles ("By the way"), similar takes on the Wikipedia cabal, and a shared tendency to edit war over sockpuppetry notices, are both editing from the same Robert Bosch GmbH subsidiary IP address, above, used by prolific sockpuppeter BryanfromPalentine. I wish I had a "supervisor" who would show up to defend me on AN/I, even a boss who had any idea about Wikipedia. Personally, if I worked for a public company and I found that my employees were using company resources to play politics in an election, and were accused of pranking Wikipedia to do it, I'd report them to HR and IT rather than joining in the act myself.Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christ on a bicycle. It's painfully obvious that this is, if not bluntly sockpuppetry, then an organized collection of people editing to the same goals on the same pages. Block the bloody lot of them and be done with it. If we, for some odd reason, can't reach a consensus on that (and considering how often we've been sucked in by this particular little Illinois crowd of POV-pushers), then I suggest the issues be cooled down by issuing a topic ban on any politics-related articles. First choice is the block button, though - otherwise, this is going to keep coming back over and over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sock puppetry is a disgrace and has no place in WP. Those puppets should be ashamed of their behavior and banned for good. They even should have their American citizenship removed (although that is not possible) since they're used it in such disgracefully way that I'm pretty much ashamed of this behavior of my fellow citizens. I'm full of anger and done with it for now before I lose myself and really start posting inappropriate comments/opinions and I'll better don't watch this page for a while unless I cool down. Having a few bad day's anyway lately so this here it is the least I need right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One inappropriate comment (I just can't resist): Dump them in the next available landfill! Ok, now I shut up.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, do you drink much on your bad days Magnificent? :-D DigitalNinjaWTF 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, let's go with not doing that. I want abusive Wikipedia accounts banned. Nothing more. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think murder or revocation of citizenship are options, but I'm wondering if Bosch's IT department should be told its IP is being used abusively? Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would certainly be a good remedy. There is absolutely no reason to punish the entire company because of the behavior of one bad apple. They should definitely be made aware of the abuse. I'm sure they have policies in place to deal with such situations. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy guys. Lets just take it one step at a time an block them first. We can always do more at the approperiate time, if such a time comes. DigitalNinjaWTF 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks

    I have just indefinitely blocked User:Marx0728 and User:Curious bystander as abusive sockpuppet accounts (I don't really care who's the master and who's the puppet). I'm about to block 300wackerdrive, WorkerBee74, and Kossack4Truth as sockpuppets of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. Please note that in addition to the well-documented escapades of B4T, there's good reason to suspect that the same person was involved in a festival of POV-pushing at the Waterboarding article (see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding).

    I don't think this action should be controversial (except in the eyes of the blocked users) but I welcome review and discussion of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support the actions of brave akhilleus in ending the hectoring of this ilian army. You may strip them of their socks and vaunt.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hektoring... I like that. Nice. MastCell Talk 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I approve both Akhilleus' action and Bali ultimate's literate comment. However, I hope that we can avoid dragging the corpse of this edit warrior around the city. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be useful:

    In this case the block could certainly have waited. On the other hand, I don't think that a blanket admonition to rely on checkuser is the best advice. Checkuser is a confirmatory tool, and it's prone to false negatives as well as false positives. Case in point: I was absolutely sure that this guy was a sock of a specific banned user. However, the checkuser request I filed came back unrelated. Being a new and naive admin at the time, I trusted the checkuser result over my intuition. Finally, though, I couldn't ignore it: this was obviously a sock. So I took the plunge, blocked the account despite the unrelated checkuser, and posted it to AN/I, fully expecting to be shat upon given the prevailing attitudes on this noticeboard. Fortunately for me, Dmcdevit repeated the checkuser at AN/I and confirmed my suspicion. The take-home message is that checkuser is one tool for identifying abusive accounts, albeit a useful one. Administrative intuition or judgement is often as useful, and sometimes more useful. I agree with Jehochman that the checkuser was essential for rounding up the other socks, but my point is that checkuser is a complement to, not a substitute for, sound administrative judgement. MastCell Talk 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    300wackerdrive (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that was a well-chosen quote. :) For the record: I think it's long past time to clean up this mess and block all of these tendentious agenda accounts. Whether they are actual socks or merely indistinguishable for-all-intents-and-purposes socks is a bit academic. They've all made it amply clear that their political agenda takes precedence over the encyclopedia and our basic behavioral and content policies. It's really too bad that we lost Noroton (talk · contribs) - who was opinionated but generally respectful of the project's goals - while this group of obviously abusive accounts remains active. Good blocks, and I advocate tying up the loose ends. I feel bad personally for not taking care of it myself sooner. MastCell Talk 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Block. If the editor feels compelled to provide us very real evidence they are not a sock, then that would be a very good reason to actually use the "unblock" feature. Hmmmm, some reason I foresee 5 different fully protected user pages in the very near future ;-D DigitalNinjaWTF 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Methinks perhaps at this point he is hinting that he knows the "joke" is over. If that is the case, then I doubly support Wikidemon's suggestion that we inform his place of employment of the long-term abuse coming from their IP address. They can no doubt track down the individual user on their corporate network responsible for most of their Wikipedia traffic, and prevent further disruption. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --GoodDamon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio

    Resolved

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_cottage is taken from http://newjerseyhistorichomesforsale.com/OakCottageHistory.html ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At least I think it's a copyvio. Sorry. Let me look into it more...ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the offending text. I should have just done that in the first place. Nothing to see here folks, move along. RESOLVED Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2-on-1 tag teaming from roux and Laval

    At Bethmanns and Rothschilds, a sub-article equidistant to main articles House of Rothschild and House of Bethmann (or Bethmann family), roux posted two templates to the top of the Article page: {{essay-like}} and {{peacock}}.

    On the Template instructions, editors using the Template are instructed to:

    Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag.

    roux did not add such an item to the Article's Talk page. I then left a note on roux's Talk page, inviting him to discuss criticism and improvements, and told him that I was removing the Templates for the time being.

    roux then joined me at Talk:Bethmanns and Rothschilds, and after initial general criticism, offered two specific critiques. One of them I explained was mistaken, the other I agreed was on point and I immediately implemented a change to the Article. I offered to continue working on the Article with his general criticism in mind as well as continuing to respond to any future specific criticisms. In addition, I emphasized that roux is always entitled to edit the Article directly for improvement.

    However, I did ask that the Templates be left off while we were continuing the discussion, as they are intrusive and not conducive to collegial editing.

    Next, Laval added 2 (two) Templates to the top of Bethmanns and Rothschilds: one, an AfD Template nominating the Article for deletion, and (2) an {{essay}} Template demanding improvements in the Article. I removed one of the two Templates, namely the {{essay}} Template, and informed Laval on his Talk page of the reason, namely that the two Templates are at odds with each other. He responded that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding of the AfD process". (I note that even though the Template suggested to Laval that he "Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Bethmanns and Rothschilds}} on their talk page(s)", he did not do so.)

    Now roux has filed a 3RR abuse report on me asking for administrator intervention. Again, neither roux nor Laval notified me of this report, I had to find it by going through roux's "user contributions". roux also added a 3RR Warning to my Talk page.

    Individually, none of these actions by roux and Laval may rise to the level of a rules violation. However, I feel that they are not conducive to collegial editing, and I would welcome suggestions on how to deal with this situation. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You removed tags from an article without actually addressing the issues. Laval replaced them, you removed them again. I warned you about the potential 3RR violation as required. I offered only two specific critiques because I didn't really feel like going through the entire essay line by line and pointing out what was wrong. I would add that other editors have also agreed that the article is filled with OR and POV and reads like an essay. The 3RR report was in aid of a) me not simply reverting your removal of the tags, despite them being completely appropriate and accurate, and b) having an admin point out to you that what you were doing was wrong. I've done nothing wrong here. [roux » x] 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also asking for a block on Miog1974. This account made its first and only edit yesterday diff, slapping a Speedy Deletion template on the same article. Per WP:RCU I may not ask for a checkuser in this situation, but am entitled to ask that a "disruptive 'throwaway' account used only for a few edits" be blocked.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am one of those type of editors who feels that tags were invented for a reason. Although they tend to look gaudy on the article pages, they are an essential part of the editing process. How else would other editors know that there is a problem? The tags are what helps fix the potential problem, even if editors do not agree with them. Tags should though, be used in good faith and not be used to make a disruption. I see your point about the two editors though. In the meantime, the tags should stay until the issue is resolved, otherwise why have tags.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally hate tags because they make a page look so horrible. I feel that they should only be used if there is a very clear understanding of what needs to be done in order to get a tag removed. The "essay" tag is particularly obnoxious. How can an editor ever figure out what to do about it? looie496 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I am not at all opposed to the use of improvement tags. I've used them myself, for example diff. But it is important to post an explanation at the same time to the Talk page so that other editors will know what you are criticizing and how they can fix it. (Other improvement tags such as "Unreferenced" are self-explanatory.) What I am objecting to is the discourtesy exhibited by roux and Laval.
    (If I may go off on a bit of a tangent, improvement tags are like cattle prods, they are designed to get attention and to prompt corrective action. Once that action is under way, the tags can be removed. In fact, at de:Historikerstreit I got good results even after the main author removed my improvement tag. Instead of putting the tag right back, I reiterated my request on the Talk page, and sure enough, the other editor then made the requested improvement.)
    Admins: will Miog1974 be blocked?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Transclusionzombie appalling conduct

    User:Transclusionzombie first came to my attention when he substituted the image of a political userbox with a pornographic image of two guys having a homosexual encounter [30]. Having reverted that, I left a warning on the user's page [31]. The user then responded to my alert with hateful obscenities [32]. It doesn't appear that this user is interested in contributing anything useful to the project. Koalorka (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned user Peter Damian and sockpuppets

    The Land Surveyor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Americanlinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    If this isn't quacking, I don't know what is. Americanlinguist, I'm told, is already confirmed by checkuser to be a sockpuppet. The Land Surveyor states that he is Americanlinguist. So, we have a banned by Jimbo user who has 2 known sockpuppets that aren't blocked. So, one would think that they should just block them. But no; I'm told that somehow ArbCom is involved in this and suggested that the sockpuppets (either one or both - not sure on details) not be blocked. What am I missing here? I've also emailed the ArbCom mailing list to inform them of this thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this is ArbCom exercising its authority to overturn Jimbo decisions per Wikipedia:Project_Leader#Limitations, it really must make it publicly clear it is doing so. There are 1,600 admins here and all of them can't be counted on to know the latest political banter in the backroom. MBisanz talk 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes; if there's good reason not to block them and to ignore the ban by Jimbo, sure - no problem, but we can't be expected to know this without being told. And by "good reason" all I mean is arbcom saying so - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Americanlinguist wasn't confirmed by checkuser, he outed himself. It's a kind of productive trolling where he creates throwaway socks, writes some very high-quality content, and then reveals himself in order to "force" us to re-block him. Last time this was discussed here, the consensus was that nobody felt an urge to feed the troll and play his game, by doing him the favour of blocking him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect that's pretty much the case. When someone writes up a trolling plan on the theory that Wikipedia's rules are a suicide pact and then tries to put it into action, it's often useful to ignore the idiocy, treat it as Calvinball and get on with writing an encyclopedia (c.f. [33]). Not that there would be anything wrong with such a block, it's just not something anyone should overly concern themselves with enacting - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, it's not a "suspicion" that this is his trolling plan, he said so quite openly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I understand Jimbo was involved in chatting with him recently about keeping this account unblocked, what I mean is arbcom's not acting on their own (as if they'd do anything as dynamic as that. :) ) But don't quote me on this one. :) Sticky Parkin 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So why don't we just block the accounts and stop him from editing his talk page? He's banned, AFAIK, so I don't think avoiding sturm and drang is a good reason to not block him. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • At a guess, it's because he was banned for wasting everyone's time, and Jimbo is capable of accepting an assurance that such a problem won't happen again. And although he's occasionally wrong to believe this, he's also often right. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. From the thread above I only gathered that he was banned but is making socks in order to show that we ban good contributors...and we were not blocking the socks in order to avoid trouble. If some negotiation is going on, that's cool. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was banned for creating unacceptable levels of drama. Comparing Wikipedia to book-burning by the Spanish Inquisition, as I recall, was the final straw. Maybe after thinking about it he has decided that Wikipedia is only like the Italian Inquisition. looie496 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he was blocked for creating unacceptable amounts of drama. He was banned by Jimbo later for related reasons. I was party to the original discussion, which is why I chimed in here w/ questions. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Seeyou

    Seeyou is a WP:SPA with a poor command of English who tends to ignore consensus, disrupt articles and their talk pages, and assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him/her.

    Most recently, Seeyou has decided to ignore the consensus from a month-old [34] RfC (which was a re-visitation of a previous discussion), and restore the disputed information [35], claiming that the conclusion from the discussions what that the information should be kept [36]. Since then, Seeyou has been edit-warring over the information, overlooking the objections to it being kept that were made November 8th [37] [38]. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While a second RfC/U for Seeyou has been discussed, I think it would be better if an admin would step in and consider a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just making a drive-by suggestion, but if the RFC/U has apparently failed, what about trying formal mediation? MuZemike (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its been to mediation 4 times, I know at least once when I failed as a medcab mediator to resolve it. MBisanz talk 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mediation is not a particularly useful process for dealing with a tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. MastCell Talk 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeyou is escalating the situation with continued assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and misrepresentation [39] [40].

    As an alternative to a block, I think it would be helpful to find out what Seeyou's native language is, then find an editor fluent in it to ask Seeyou basic questions about Seeyou's ability to understand the policies and guidelines that Seeyou repeatedly violates. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One more suggestion (then I will "butt out" of this discussion), but if all other avenues of WP:DR had clearly failed, then the only other route might very well be requesting for arbitration - get something final and concrete. MuZemike (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unhelpful typographical changes?

    Would someone please review the edits of User:Leandrod, who's been replacing the standard apostrophe (') with what the editor says is the "proper" apostrophe (’). Unfortunately, once this is done, words in which he has replaced the apostrophe cannot be found by normal browser search functions. For instance, in this version of the article on The Magnificent Ambersons (film), a search for the word "can't", which is in the second paragraph of the "Plot" section, comes up empty. (Leandrod's remark to me that "can't" should be avoided in an encyclopedia article is true, but irrelevant to the problem here), as does a search for "mama's" (second paragraph of "Plot") "George's" (last graf of "Plot") and "RKO's" (first graf of "Production").

    Whatever the theoretical merits of the change Leandrod is making may be, clearly it is not helpful to make a conversion which puts ordinary words outside the reach of regular browser search functions. (I checked this under both IE and Firefox.) The changes, which seem extensive, should probably be reverted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, WP:MOS says: "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended." (although it's ugly.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all are going to have your work cut out for you, as he's on a crusade of some kind. He's also been on here since 2002, so he should know better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on the user's page pointing him to the manual of style. AniMate 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lolene

    Resolved
     – Sent to AfD. Black Kite 22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone compare this with the deleted LOLENE and see if it needs to be nuked? Speedy tag removed by article creator - notability asserted but not proved. Exxolon (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not identical, but, awful damn close. Several paragraphs match word for word. I'll leave this to another admin, however. SQLQuery me! 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NM, it's been nuked. SQLQuery me! 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewriting using the William Burroughs cut'n'paste method does not make it any less a recreation of a previously deleted article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's been recreated already. SQLQuery me! 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I nuked it again and salted it, but I'm going to undelete it and send to AfD, because - as I didn't realise at the time - it was speedied the first time, not AfD'd, and therefore shouldn't really be G4'd. Black Kite 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh, I see a future argument about someone being a "recreationist" -t BMW c- 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it'll make a difference from the usual things I get called ;) Black Kite 22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, the original JOLENE was A7'ed, and I speedied as a recreation without looking at the "after discussion" language at the end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of paratrooper forces

    One User:Archangel1 is continually blanking the above page, because he feels it is not well sourced. Can an administrator please explain to him that that's not how the deletion process works? --Tavrian 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Restored previous version, Level 2 warning to user. Now, please properly source the article: starting... NOW! (starts stopwatch) -t BMW c- 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has deleted content from List of special forces units ‎with a summary of English refs required, not foreign) - someone needs to explain to them that we are absolutely allowed to cite to non-english sources and for articles/information on non-english entities they may well be the best choice. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a fairly long standing series of discussions about the use of cite requests, things have just now come to a head. He tends to remove requests he doesn't like. What's prompted this has been predominantly around Pathfinder Platoon which is a bit of a pet of his as a former Parachute Regiment soldier attached to the recce force. Overnight he's also trashed that article as well as the Special Boat Service article, in what appears to be retribution for my reinstatement of a handful of citation requests.
    He's been made aware of the policy and guidance, and this is merely his approach to interpreting them.
    ALR (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has a history of deleting material he doesn't like without engaging in discussion beforehand. He deleted most of the List of special forces units article back in August and edit-warred endlessly with editors who added and re-added cited material on the grounds that the sources didn't meet his standards. He was warned for this behavior ([41]), and settled down to productive editing, but is now back to the same behavior. I'd block him for this disruptive behavior, but was involved in the SF article dispute so I won't do so as this may be seen as unfair. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message on the user's talkpage directing him to WP:NONENG, which specifies that while it is preferable for sources to be in the English language, it is by no means required. Hopefully that will help out some. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Not entirely convinced it had the desired effect considering the hissy fit that's going on now. :)
    ALR (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's really too bad, especially as I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of removing unsourced content (which, to be fair, a lot of it is). It's just that rampaging around like the proverbial bull in a china shop is not the best way to achieve this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I'd be more sympathetic if there had been any effort to do these things in the past. The issue with the SBS article is that the sources I have are all protectively marked, so not reliable in wikifairyland. OK they're only RESTRICTED, but the principle applies.
    fwiw I've lost interest in providing some guidance, this is the second time he's gone on a retribution spree. But then from experience I've not come to expect much more from the inmates at Colchester.
    ALR (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is, of course, putting {{reference}} tags everywhere ... one single edit at a time. -t BMW c- 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another sock of User:PoliticianTexas

    Resolved
     – Nishkid64 tpook care of him. Gracias!

    The article on NMAA District 2-AAAA was semi-protected two weeks ago due to banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) IP socks (most recently at 75.91.166.24 (talk · contribs)). This banned (not blocked) user continues to insert references to St. Pius X High School into this article. His citations are false, and have been removed time and again by other editors. He seems to have returned now as JosephTatum (talk · contribs), which is inserting the exact same material and references.

    For comparison, this edit [42] was from PT's last IP, this edit [43] is from the new user JosephTatum. This IP and several others led to admin protection of the page here. [44]

    Admin attention would be appreciated. I've removed them once, but I thought I should come here for admins since this seems pretty obvious. Dayewalker (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomad2u001

    Nomad2u001 (talk · contribs)

    I don't claim to understand this user's issues, but I've reached the limits of reasonable patience.

    The editor's only activity during the last couple of weeks has been to repeatedly delete a couple of general sentences without explanation at Physician assistant#Taiwan, and to substitute a sentence that promotes the training program a "the private Fooyin University". After repeated demands, he once provided a weak source, which he now dislikes and deletes it if anyone includes it.

    He has also repeatedly deleted a couple of sentences from the history that refer to another (United States) university, as well as other paragraphs from the history.

    He uses no edit summaries. To get any sort of response from him (other than having him promptly engage in an edit war), I've had to leave several messages on his talk page. He finally replied briefly, basically to say that he doesn't like the source he originally provided. When I asked for more information, he blanked the entire talk page for the article.

    This person has been warned an amazing (14?) number of times (see this page for a reconstruction of what his user talk page would look like if he didn't promptly delete all warnings) and he just doesn't get it. Does this sort of long-term edit warring justify a block? Alternatively, can I get some extra eyes at Physician assistant, so that the people there aren't trying to deal with this by themselves? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the brief comments, the language used, and the repeated references to a Taiwanese university, I'd say that this user is perhaps not that good with English, and that there may be cultural issues preventing the message from being understood properly. With that said, we obviously can't have users going around edit warring and removing content. With that said, I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was some other source on the topic to support the alternative wording of the sentence. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I think I'd be happy with any decent sources, but the edit warring has got to stop. We have no proof that the program at Fooyin University even exists (the source says that in 2005 it was "in development"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thprfssnl‎'s empassioned charge on Nihilism

    Over the past week, Thprfssnl (talk · contribs) has been locked in the fiercest of noble struggles on the Nihilism article. His mission: to add a blurb about the "portrayal" of nihilism in The Big Lebowski - a portrayal that, while memorable, has about as much value in an article about nihilism as that episode where Bugs Bunny dresses up like a police officer to fool Elmer Fudd would in the article on police. He has been reverted by three separate editors - myself included - and four, if this obvious sockpuppet (more on this in a minute) counts. In addition to the broad personal attacks in that last diff, he has been using sockpuppets to push his cause (and one of those sockpuppets courtesy blanked his talk page - a practice which he has a habit of doing. So much for communication). Other highlights include destroying the holy sanctity of my red-linked username (check his deleted contributions - and would an admin be so kind as to post a copy of my "vandalized" user page to User:Badger_Drink/sandbox for my own perusal?), personal attacks such as this (previously linked), and occasional vandalism in his undying effort to make sure that people of the world know that The Big Lebowski featured a comically simplistic group of "nihilists" in its plot. The rest of his edits seem to be mainly soccer European-football related, a topic with which I am nearly complete in my ignorance of - though the edits seem to be mostly minor Wiki-gnome work. Badger Drink (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored the page for you. Taking a look at the edits now, from what I've seen so far of this user, I'm not all that impressed (and seriously, destroying the holy sanctity of your redlinked name should be a hangable offense). Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I've issued the user with a level 4im warning for personal attacks and vandalism (the user was also warned here, but removed the warning from their talk page. The user has not edited since.) Given the history of edit warring and poor behaviour, I've a feeling that the user will not be able to help themself and will be blocked sooner rather than later. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I have blocked the following two IPs for re-adding the same material to Nihilism, after a final warning. They are quite clearly the same user:
    Further eyes on the article would be welcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I have also blocked the original user for vandalism after final warning, using IP accounts to avoid 3RR and using deceptive edit summaries, not to mention the incivility and other transgressions mentioned above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Range-block request

    Resolved
     – Really ought to learn how to do this myself one day... BencherliteTalk 12:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone who knows about these things please look into a range-block of Middle East Technical University, Ankara IP addresses: e.g. Special:Contributions/144.122.250.237, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.196, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.217, Special:Contributions/144.122.250.218 etc. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be done now. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta. BencherliteTalk 12:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luna Santin's talk page

    Their talk page is undergoing heavy vandalism from multiple IPs, who i am certain is the same person. How would i check this or could someone?

    Also, have i missed anyone? Simply south (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PhilKnight has sprotected the page for a while. Unless these accounts move to another target I think we should ignore them, and let Luna Santin deal with it how they please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just another distributed attack from 4chan. Revert, Block Semiprotect, and Ignore --Enric Naval (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    couldn't we have a step in there that has some kind of tactical action... it might discourage further attacks..--Crossmr (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "tactical action" involve carpet-bombing 4chan's servers? (If so, I'll get the marshmallows.) Beyond that, I don't see it being possible to do much against a distributed attack by IPs being driven in here from a page that's being read by millions of people worldwide. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where the abuse filter would really come in handy. We could set it to automatically block IPs for 24 hours if they try saving a page with that content, and every time the instigator comes up with a new phrase, we could write another filter. J.delanoygabsadds 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oop. Thanks for the help, everyone. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by editor with possible conflict of interest at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

    Fru23 (talk · contribs)began a series of wholesale deletions of several sections of this page, w/o any discussion on talk and little or no edit summary. In a chat discussion this user claimed to be affiliated with the O'Reilly Factor. He has since "sort of" retracted that admission.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned for edit-warring. As an aside, Fru23 (talk · contribs) seems to pretty clearly be a sock, but whatever. Either he'll go to the talk page and work things out (as the article does have some room for improvement), or he'll ignore the warning, continue edit-warring, and end up blocked. MastCell Talk 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    International Churches of Christ

    Could someone look at this? Apparently, someone has interwoven information about a particular, unrelated church in with the information about the subject, and I haven't the time to unravel it now. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock of 62.158.108.0/24

    I've rangeblocked 62.158.108.0/24 for a bit; see the various personal abuse and "you can't block me, I'll continue vandalizing forever" threats from this block. They reappeared outside this /24 shorlty afterwards, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.158.76.7 I've now also rangeblocked the new /24, which seems to have stopped them for the moment.

    If that does not discourage them, I suggest softblocking the relevant /16 next. -- The Anome (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fairly quiet range (probably more active on de). Still, it has a few helpful users; I'd recommend keeping any blocks on the /16 shortish and definitely soft. Probable matches for our new friend, going back to October:
    1. 62.158.76.7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    2. 62.158.87.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    3. 62.158.108.114 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    4. 62.158.124.39 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    5. 62.158.87.186 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    6. 62.158.119.241 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    7. 62.158.113.57 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    8. 62.158.100.188 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    9. 62.158.117.177 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    10. 62.158.82.82 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) maybe
    11. 62.158.78.209 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) probably?
    12. 62.158.75.241 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) maybe
    As you can see, they don't seem to be confined within any particular subset of the larger range. It's not a lot of activity from this vandal, but for the past day or two has been just about the only activity on the range, to give you some idea. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boxstaa

    This was archived before it was replied to, so I'm reposting it:

    I'd like to bring to attention the user [[::User:Boxstaa|Boxstaa]] ([[::User talk:Boxstaa|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Boxstaa|contribs]]). This user is consistently adding unsourced material, often original research to articles. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. They have also created several categories that are over categorizing, such as: Category:Bands named after places, Category:Mondegreens, and Category:Spanglish songs.

    I have a very strong suspicion that this is the same person as [[::User:Roadstaa|Roadstaa]] ([[::User talk:Roadstaa|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Roadstaa|contribs]]). The names are very similar and Roadstaa has a long history of adding original research and creating original research articles. Roadstaa also created at least one category which was deleted. Roadstaa has done an extensive amount of dubious page moves, and Boxstaa has already had one page move reverted. I would have filed a sock puppet report but Roadstaa has not edited since Boxstaa was created (two days after Roadstaa's last edit).

    I'm not sure what should be done about this user. I'm assuming good faith, but I think this user is causing more problems than they are helping.

    Since I initially posted this Boxstaa has created the category Songs about poverty. I also found my old incident report on Roadstaa's AfD behavior for a bit more history. swaq 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=251405030"