Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Synergy (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 19 December 2008 (→‎User:Bedford blatantly breaking policies...: to the General). 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.

    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


    Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

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

    The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Wikipedia since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. [1] He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      • BOLP Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors. I know a lot about the rules of wikiepdia bolp,coatrack, and npov. I admit that part of my recent contributions to the TALK Pages of olberman and Al my have been to make a WP:POINT. Fru23 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - I personally see absolutely no constructive contributions from this editor, and only seems like he's here to service an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia in the process. I would endorse putting all of his editing privileges on probation pending constructive contribution elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I have no interest in knowing, or debating, anyone's personal political beliefs. This is not why we are here, and simple decorum demands we leave such topics out of Wikipedia. However, when a user makes edits in such a manner that there political views become not only obvious but problematic, then some action has to be taken. Fru23 does not seem to understand why we are here, and shows no sign of wanting to improve as an editor. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry?

    • OK, so at the risk of turning this into WP:SSP:
      • We've established (and he's admitted) that 72.192.216.42 was Fru23 at one time.
      • Looking at Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42, we see this "dynamic" IP's second edit, in July, was to Cesar Millan. It was a revert to a previous version by....
      • Special:Contributions/KingsOfHearts. Looking at the edit summaries of KingsOfHearts' September edits, it's clear that all the "LOL your sources suck" edits from the IP this summer and early fall were the same person as KingsOfHearts.
      • Looking at the articles KingsOfHearts has edited, we see that there's an amazing overlap with...
      • Special:Contributions/Fru23.
      • Quack.
    I think the only question now is, are Fru23 and KingsOfHearts the same POV pushing vandal who should be indef blocked, or are they friends who have been socking on Bill O'Reilly and other conservative articles, and should be blocked? Luckily, per WP:SOCK, it really doesn't matter. Don't subject ban, Block indef.. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's impressive detective work. It does seem like we have sock/meat puppetry going on here, and that would call for a block. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)As Gordon Ramsay would say: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear." Permablock, yes. // roux   01:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check your facts, KingsofHearts has been editing for a year, longer than the ip which supports my claim that it is dynamic, I started editing on the ip but stopped after noticing its past contributions some which were on BILL OREILLY which is why I went there in the first place, I said all of this about a month ago. Barneca, do some research on my past edits before accusing me of conservative pov pushing so you won't look like such a .

    So far I have edited the follow articles.

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

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


    After Looking through again I have not edited ANY page that kingofhearts has edited. Croctotheface stop praising him for this and what would I be blocked for? Fru23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also recommend a comparison to Wikiport (talk · contribs), another short lived POV pusher who showed up to complain about sources[6] on the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly articles (also note the reference to Olbermann). My guess? Fru23 is yet another sock of the same disruptive user who has been showing up on the FNC related talk pages for a very long time. The quacking is getting louder. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I just listed every page I have edited, NONE are the same as kingsofhearts, plus only one can be even remotely considered conservative, most are liberal. Please one of the people going OMG SOCK!!1! respond to this. Its is entirely possible that we at one point had the same ip that does not mean we are the same person. Even if we were that is not a warrant a ban or even a block, wikipedia has no rule against having more than 1 account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Fru23 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru23 is obviosuly not a sock, so lets dropt his line of ringworm snot right now please and ge back to the original content conflictSmith Jones (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "increasquitian" and "dropt his line of ringworm snot"--Smith Jones, WP would be a much less-cromulent place without you. (More comprehensible, perhaps, but definitely less-cromulent.) You should write poetry in your spare time. :) GJC 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, I'm going treasure being accused of speaking "ringworm snot" for quite a while. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask and ye shall receive ... Blueboy96 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Blueboy, for picking up the ball and running with it. I'd planned to file a checkuser request after Fru23 denied it, but I was pulled away from the computer rather abruptly. I'll go there now to see if there's anything I can add. --barneca (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meatpuppetry to stir up contentiousness most assuredly IS against the rules, regardless of their physical proximity, and I remember very well at least one very contentious case where both of them were banned despite checkuser showing no relationship at all. One tidbit I find interesting is his edit on Muhammad, which seems off track from his usual editing. However, it is on my watchlist (which is up to 2,500 items now - yikes) and I had edited it recently, so he might have been looking at my recent edits and decided to make a small edit just to give the false appearance of some diversity. I could be wrong about that, though. However, it would be interesting to see if a checkuser tied these various guys together, or if its coincidental. A look at the history of Fru23, the IP, and KingsOfHearts does seem to bear out his argument that the common articles are only or primarily on the IP, not on the named users alone, indicating that they are sharing the IP somehow. The bizarre use of caps is fairly common to Kings and the IP, but rather less often for Fru23. It might also be interesting to put a hard block on that IP 72.192.216.42 and see what the fallout is, if any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They have the same passwords, they are indeed socks. Lobocf (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    "Lobocf" might be Serbian for "troll". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • bolp = biography of living persons. its ia perfect valid annunciation of the term WP:BOLP that I personaly use every often day when relevent as it means the same thing and is actualy more clearly the n the more inaccurate WP:BLP which could mean anything since it has no palindromatic information attached to the link. Smith Jones (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wacknowldged you but the point i am trying to say that is WP:BOLP is an existing redirect, which eans that it must hav ebeen used by SOMEONE before fru23. while i admit its (unfortunately) rare but that doesnt mean that Fru23 is somekind of sockpuppet mastermind. lets wait for the checkuser to tell us who is a sockpoppet of whom and deal with the matter of Fru23s behavior pthus far irrespecitve of the nature of his alleged sockpuppets if there are any which whom I am in seriously doubt-mode. Smith Jones (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I "wacknowledge" that it doesn't prove sockpuppetry. It's just a little piece in a puzzle. Checkuser would likely tell us for sure, one way or the other. But that oddity jumped out at me when I was looking at Fru23's contrib list. Similarities in style are worth looking at when sockpuppetry is suspected, even though they may be coincidental. For what it's worth, the alternate WP:BOLP was created nearly 2 years ago: [7] whose span on wikipedia was a grand total of 20 minutes, in which he (or it) created a number of variations on WP:BLP and other wikipedia abbreviations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    again, i agre wthat there is probalb ysomething fishiny about these two accounts, but to me tocontineu arguing here is to have WP:ANI usurp the role of WP:sSP THERE Is alwready a checkuser request underway re: this user and it makesmore sense to do the sockpuppet investigations via WP:SSP and dea l with the mentorship/conflict resolution/etc elsevhere. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that you need a new keyboard? New Monitor? My typing is often lysdexic, but I bow to the master. Edison (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what this is supposed to prove. Even if you decide to say I am a sock I have never crossed paths with kingofhearts, so I can't be blocked for that. See legitimate uses of sockpuppets. Fru23 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a positive result would show is a history of seven recent blocks instead of only two. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which may or may not be the reason he was trying to get at least one of his blocks deleted from the log: [8] and [9] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    A Foxy sock drawer

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

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

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

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

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

    Here an edit from the ip reverts to the version favored by Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you list all the socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts? Time to close this on-wiki puppet show. Blueboy96 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru23, KingsOfHEarts and Xrxty all blocked indef, while 72.192.216.42 has been blocked 48 hours. This show is over. Blueboy96 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There. Not a single grain of evidence of abuse, but who cares. Opposition to the prevailing pov must be removed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Around 10 blocks for disruption. Several grains' worth there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Afterthought

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

    Happens all the time, Bugs. Ever since I first became a sysop I've noticed it. That's a typical arc for disruptive users. Probably better not to name it after a particular person, because if the matter becomes too personal for them they're apt to stick around and become an even bigger problem. See User_talk:BooyakaDell#Sockpuppet, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196, and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Another thought is the Homer Simpson response to when he messes up: "D'oh!" In The Hunt for Red October, the enemy ship managed to torpedo itself. Maybe "wikipedo". Or "wikipe-D'oh!"
    Hey, by the way, we now know what the deal is with those guys, as they "retired" within 4 minutes of each other: [10] and [11] They're brothers! Shazam! This is a twist on the usual "my evil twin brother did it", the dilemma being it's hard to figure out which one was the evil twin. Ironically, KingsOfHearts' talk page initially said, "I will try my best to help wikipedia. Any suggestions?" Today, he helped wikipedia.
    That still leaves Xrxty. That must be the "evil cousin" who's out of town. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One semi-serious question: KingsOfHearts had uploaded a photo of O'Reilly that he took on-set. Would it be presumptuous to license-tag it as PD-self, since he says he took the photo only he didn't seem to get that it needs to say PD-self? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it can be presumed he meant PD-self, but the question above suggests a possibility that it's not- if FRU did once work for O'Reilly and he took the picture in the line of work, the image might well be a work product, and thus ownership would go to O'Reilly's production company. On the other hand, if KOH wasn't an employee, and just happened to be on the set with a camera, it's a different story. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had best leave it alone, then. I see that Blaxthos has un-deleted the two talk pages, since the "retired" stuff is a lie - it's kind of like Larry Miller's pub-crawl joke, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." So the next question is, where does one request page protection? I know there's a page for that somewhere, but I've never used it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ==>WP:RFPP Deor (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Danke. Blaxthos, in fact, already has it covered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, this is evidence you are simply reverting to old habits. This edit that you made does not accord with the content of the source cited. Why don't you quit making edits like that for a while and maybe we can address the questions you raise. There is a serious question as to whether blogs are appropriate sources. Fred Talk 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold the phone

    Here's a brand new redlink jumping straight into this debate. Imagine that. [12] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criminy... —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but everything's OK, he says he's not a sock of Fru23. He just happened to jump into this debate, as a brand new user. Must be a miracle of some kind or other. P.S. I posted a note on the checkuser's page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if this is an attempt to make a WP:POINT about AGF, considering this comment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported the above user, who is obviously a sock and promises to continue his predecessors' disruption, to the checkuser and also to AIV. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, though honestly I don't think AIV will do anything as this sort of gaming/socking doesn't really qualify as vandalism (see here). Also, I wonder what the CU will turn up, considering both IPs that they're known to have used in the original CU case were blocked at the time of account creation. I wouldn't rule out going over to a coffee shop or some such, but I doubt a CU would be able to determine anything from this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Quoth the ravenduck: neverquackermore. "I am not a sock of X" is kind of proof of being a sock of X, all other things taken into consideration. // roux   20:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured posting to AIV wouldn't hurt, especially in light of his threat to continue his predecessors' disruption. BlueBoy is preparing another CU case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately for us, the user doesn't seem to be trying at all to hide his tracks, so it should be very easy to spot future puppets. I actually didn't realize this had gone this far up until stumbling upon this page earlier today. It's really quite something. NcSchu(Talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppets often assume the collective editorship here is as stupid naive as they turn out to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, would you consider a refactor there? I know this is frustrating but it's better to take the high road. DurovaCharge! 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, I do not understand what flawed logic you are using. I am neither disruptive or a sock. JcLiner (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are actually a legitimate sock, prove it. Contact someone on Arbcom and tell them in strict confidence who you really are--with proof, naturally. They can then convey that you are indeed the legitimate alternate of another account. Or just wait for the CU request to be processed. I don't think anyone here is in any doubt of what those results will be. // roux   21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, it's been filed. I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to block based on behavioral evidence. I don't think we need to wait for the checkuser results. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block me now so if the results come back negitive you will look like an idiot. I expect an apoligy and for everyone to remove all acusations against me when this is disproven. JcLiner (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser results came back as "possible." Similarities noted by Fred, coupled with JcLiner's behavior, were enough for me to indefblock. (sigh) I have a feeling we're going to end up playing whack-a-mole with this one for awhile. Blueboy96 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he owes you the "apoligy". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has graciously supplied us with his current IP 64.72.89.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is now in the wikilawyering stage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are so obvious. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, so was Mr. Fox 'n Socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave the IP an extra day off (for a block of two days) and disabled user talk page editing. If he wants to contest the block, he can use one of his accounts. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've invited him to email me and given directions for how to do so. DurovaCharge! 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The banned User:Tecmobowl also tried to get the checkuser to tell him how he identified him when he used socks. As if. Fred gives a hint of it though - it seems like the PC itself can be identified through some kind of signature, the technology of which is beyond me. It's kind of scary from the Big Brother standpoint, but it's also necessary in the hit-and-run world of the internet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's most likely from information that your web browser transmits to a server whenever you make a connection to it. Unless you're crazy and do certain strange things with your web browser it wouldn't ever be personally identifiable on its own, though it could be used to rule out a relationship if it were significantly different. From what I understand it was the behavioral correlations that sealed this case more than anything else. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your word for it. Just as long as checkusers continue to snag the socks and launder them, that's the important thing. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Another country heard from

    A red-link user [13] whose very first edit comes to Fru23's defense. Right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has gone on long enough

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

    I have clumsily attempted to file another sock checkuser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not very imaginative- I wonder if a CU is even necessary, but it'd certainly be a nice icing on the cake. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just in case an admin doesn't block him first. I probably should have filed at SSP, but I'm not sure how to do it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin just indef-blocked him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, already done. WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And Wknight94 has wielded his wiki light-saber and dispatched them to the wiki phantom zone. That makes 4 RBI's for Wknight94 today, from this thread alone. Every time one of these socks makes his voice heard, 2 or 3 more of his socks get sent to the laundry. Do I detect a trend here? Wknight94 has indef-blocked them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you might be taking a wee bit too much delight in all this. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, and I might just be encouraging him. Enough of this. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just when you thought it was over

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

    KOH was claiming this when he was originally blocked. I'm not sure if it's a reasonable story to accept... and even if it's true, KOH can still potentially serve as FRU's meatpuppet. Furthermore, I question whether an unblock is in order considering KOH's editing history. In any case, if he is unblocked he should be forcibly renamed due to name similarities to King of Hearts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I'm not an admin, but the dog ate my homework "my brother is the real vandal" is the most transparent unblock request ever. Good decline, Bstone is incredibly wrong. After ec: he shouldn't be unblocked. Net negative to the project, no interest in contributing positively, quite apart from the sock/meat issues. // roux   18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm too involved myself to review your <subliminal message> completely reasonable and correct </subliminal message> unblock decline myself, but for any other editors choosing to waste their time reviewing this, note that the checkuser's conclusions indicate that the half dozen or so sockpuppet accounts were all editing from a "similar set of computers similar to those which might be found in a typical office environment". So these brothers evidently work together too.
    Might I suggest that we've allowed this person to waste enough of our time? When we have ANI threads about sockpuppetry that go on for this long, the case is usually more complex and the puppeteer is at least slightly less obvious than this one. Time to let the thread die and let the bot do it's job, I think. --barneca (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "Methinks thou do'est protest too much" ♪BMWΔ 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know Bill O'Reilly employed high school students. Didn't one of them claim to work for Bill O'Reilly? --Smashvilletalk 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He just made a post that his "brother" made...only his brother said his real username was KingOfHearts...whoops! Plaxicoed! --Smashvilletalk 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IRC transcript

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

    <Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - I have a question for you
    <Ceiling_Cat> And I intend to post my question and your answer to the AN
    <Ceiling_Cat> Agreed?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ok
    <KingsOfHearts> yes?
    <Ceiling_Cat> I'd like to get something straight. You're saying that your brother made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fru23&curid=20171985&diff=257717171&oldid=257705823 - from his computer
    <Ceiling_Cat> right?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <KingsOfHearts> Yes i also retired mine
    <Ceiling_Cat> And then you want and made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KingsOfHearts&curid=14957465&diff=257718062&oldid=257604179 - from your computer, yes?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <KingsOfHearts> we got caught
    <KingsOfHearts> so i was trying to get out of it ad save one account
    <KingsOfHearts> and save one account.
    <The359> those edits 4 minutes apart is quite suspect
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya I was with him.
    <Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - and you made them from seperate computers?
    <KingsOfHearts> I think it was same comp
    <Ceiling_Cat> that's awfully convenient
    <KingsOfHearts> He told me that irl that i was going to get banned
    <KingsOfHearts> But the fact that we are brothers goes back like 4 monthes ago
    <KingsOfHearts> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Please_UnBlock_me
    <Ceiling_Cat> were you ever editing at the same time from seperate computers?
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <Ceiling_Cat> when?
    <KingsOfHearts> I don't know
    <KingsOfHearts> i could get him to though.
    <Ceiling_Cat> Ok, one last question
    <KingsOfHearts> Ya
    <KingsOfHearts> sure
    <Ceiling_Cat> These edits:
    <Ceiling_Cat> (one sec)
    <Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256944340&oldid=256510063
    <Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256946659&oldid=256944340
    <Ceiling_Cat> 14 minutes apart, to the same article.
    <Ceiling_Cat> Explain please.
    <KingsOfHearts> I don't know
    <KingsOfHearts> I can't realy
    <Ceiling_Cat> were you on the same computer?
    <KingsOfHearts> No
    <KingsOfHearts> same Ip yes
    <KingsOfHearts> we have to computers it the same room
    <KingsOfHearts> *two
    <Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - unfortunately, I have checkuser, and checkuser tells me that you're lying.
    <The359> Shocker
    <KingsOfHearts> So is the ip differant
    * Rjd0060 has been telling him that for days, with no checkuser :P
    <Ceiling_Cat> I am posting the data now

    Checkuser evidence shows the edits in question [14] [15] almost certainly came from the same computer. He's lying when he says they used different computers. Therefore I am inclined to disbelieve his claims in their entirety. Raul654 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, we have a saying: "admit you screwed up, the repercussions will always be less than if you deny and get found out". It goes hand in hand with "make me come investigating, and you're gonna get screwed". ♪BMWΔ 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully request redacting that log unless both parties gave their consent to have that published here. DurovaCharge! 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was on the channel too, KingOfHearts has said that he "has no objections" at 20:47 --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he agreed then... DurovaCharge! 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Endgame

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

    He certainly seems to be trying very hard to exhaust everyone's patience. Shimgray | talk | 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    De facto RBI on a given person/user strikes me as sounding a lot like a community ban. Is this what we're proposing? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you look all the way up, you'll notice the original request was for a topic ban, akin to community ban, and sock puppetry was discovered later. :) PS: I'd like to congratulate everyone on finding the sock puppetry and blocking KoH so fast. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh jeez... guess I forgot what we had set out to do here anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called serendipity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on if we should propose a defacto RBI / topic (aka community per Mendaliv) ban would be welcome. Although I guess RBI is de facto for any new sockpuppets either way.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:KingsOfHearts is being advised to create a new account to get around the alleged compromising of his account by his alleged brother. Supposing that actually happens, how would this proposed topic ban come into play, if at all? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So we will be ignoring the sock puppeting then? Its one thing to be compromised, but another to create at least 5 sockpuppets.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope not. What I'm asking is whether any new user that KOH creates should be pre-empted from editing this topic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'd like to remind everyone that the checkuser turned up a few "sleeper" accounts (at least it says so above, I think), so I endorse a topic ban at the least. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I posted on WP:AIV, but they might decline it. Maybe coincidental, but notice the HelpPlease234 vs. Fru23. What's with the digits? And I wonder what Fru is supposed to mean anyway, but we never got that far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know but I'm guessing there are probably more sleeper accounts that has slipped by us, I mean this confession was from September! Lastly, if you think about it, if KoH KNEW his brother had access to his account in September, why didn't KOH change the password since obviously, right now the "legitimate" KoH owner has access to the account (why they are asking for compromised issue)?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he/they are trying to figure out how to get unblocked somehow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Guys, I honestly don't see any reason to assume good faith any more with this guy. The statements made by the array of sockpuppets wholly contradicts this "it was my brother" nonsense, and given the repeated disruption I don't see any reason to allow it to continue in any form. This should end in a community ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ban, possibly banz0r. This is getting silly. We had a lot of !votes in favor of the topic ban earlier, but since this is a different thing, I think a new proposal might be in order (perhaps at WP:AN, which is where ban proposals are supposed to go anyway). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse new checkuser, endorse discussion for community ban. I thought about it and KoH's "brother" basically admitted to sock abuses in the evidence for Helpme, since he said "one of my brother's accounts". Last I checked, One Of meant more than one, which establishes sock puppetry from at least September (probably earlier if I looked at the creation logs for the other socks). At least this puppeteer doesn't seem to know much tech wise on avoiding checkuser or else we'd have to resort to the old WP:DUCK test. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree - After reading through this, well.. ya.. I shouldn't have to say any more.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's talking about taking this to arbitration. [16] I'm sure he'll advise them of the 10-or-so blocks for contentious editing and the sock farm that was exposed by his "brother" inadvertently revealing the IP address. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • A total block is a blunt tool that policy says should be used only with extreme care. It doesn't seem to have benefited the project by changing the behaviour of the user in question, and another total block probably won't either. A topic ban is problematic, since the boundaries around a topic are slippery, and it does little to encourage the user to be more reasonable. Is it possible to put the user on "probation" instead, with an agreement not to edit the article (while still enabling conributions to its talk page? Has mediation been attempted? There must be better ways than blocking to turn a difficult user into a productive one ... Tony (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sockfarm's primary purpose is to bend the O'Reilly articles in the direction the user wants, i.e. to remove material he doesn't like. The user has consistently done this despite attempts at discussion. There is no evidence that their behavior is likely to change. The project benefits when disruptive users are kept at bay. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the community has been dealing with this guy for months with constant POV pushing, edit warring, and a complete disregard for both other editors' opinions and Wikipedia policies and expectations. Pile that on top of what's now been shown to be a lengthy willingness to participate in sockpuppetry and outright lie about it, and I just don't see any hope of rehabilitation. These sorts of people rely on the good faith of those unfamiliar with the situation; in this instance I would strongly urge you to take the word of so many admins and editors who are familiar with this lunacy. The frequency, length and duration of threads related to these abuses on ANI should be a weighty enough testament to the need for a community ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I initially requested a temporary topic ban, these later developments have caused me to support a permanent community ban. The use of sockpuppetry to edit war, combined with the rank dishonesty, shows an unwillingness to take the project seriously and a total lack of desire to work constructively. As Blaxthos said, with this pattern of behavior it should end with a community ban. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

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

    Endorse I believe that several accounts have already received indefinite blocks. I'm not sure why this discussion is continuing and isn't closed yet. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse - What Ramsquire said. Socking results in a de facto community ban, so it looks like we're done here. // roux   18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. Obviously...I think I made my reasons clear already? --Smashvilletalk 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill

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

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

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

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

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

    I strongly believe this user is a sockpuppet because he has been vandalizing the Troy Davis case by re-introducing POV-words and phrases that existed in the article before I rewrote the article in an accurate, NPOV-compliant manner, and expanded the article to reflect all that has been going on in this case. In other words, it's a person who was originally behind some of the biased, POV-statements that existed in the article, and then, when the article was cleaned-up and edited and rewritten, he assumed a new identity (with the intent to hide behind sockpuppets), User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill, and reinserted the same phases and statements. He has no other contributions under this name, and it seems this username was invented to delete what other editors have written, and reinsert unsourced, biased statements that he originally wrote in the article (under a different name). User:SelfEvidentTruths (talk - contribs) 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, he has reinserted the words "multiple corroborating eyewitnesses" and reinserted that Davis was convicted "on physical evidence" - these are unsourced claims, contradictory to many neutral and legal sources that covered this case (Amnesty Report, Time Magazine report, FBI Director's article, etc.). Because these specific claims (which violate WP policy) existed in the original article, and because he has been reinserting them, time and again, it is highly suspicious, and it seems he created new accounts in order to vandalize the article. User:SelfEvidentTruths (talk - contribs) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Troy Davis, the convicted copkiller who unfortunately is the presently the focus of the article at the expense of the memory of the hero he allegedly smilingly and with deliberation assassinated, is identified [in sources supplied http://www.sundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2441/Should-Troy-Davis-be-executed.aspx]. Bullets and shells from the shooting of Cooper (who identified Davis, solely, as his assailant) earlier the same day matching and/or not being distinguishable by type from bullets and shells at the murder of Officer MacPhail constitute physical evidence. By all means live in denial about, just don't represent the contrary on behalf of all of us to the public. There were multiple corroborating witnesses at the stage of the police investigation, at trial, and even now. At all occasions, the witnesses that resist definitively fingering Sylvester Coles corroborate those who explicitly finger Davis, in the same fashion that those who finger neither but allege the assailant of Young to be the murderer corroborate those who only finger Davis as Young's assailant. That all being understood and acknowledged as my as my final comment on this distraction, you are invited now to give it up.HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (the above statement has been refactored to remove probable WP:BLP violations SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

    Let's see... single purpose account, nothing but POV-pushing and editorializing, labeling of fair statements on his talk page as "trolling", behavior echoing a similarly-named user... and threatening words at the checkuser request page. So why are you all still messing with this guy? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on his subsequent edits to Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein‎ this is (yet another) User:DavidYork71 sock puppet. David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One point of crossover is the Islam and children article, which York did some work on, and this current apparent-sock merely touched upon, but that's a giveaway as it seems totally out of context of this guy's current rant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would anyone mind if I blocked User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill for block evasion? This seems to sail through the quack test with flying colours. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lucasbfr has done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I aggree this is most probably DY. I filled a RFCU to see if there are any sleepers. I expect there are (I triggered an autoblock). -- lucasbfr talk 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jolly good. Markallenmacphail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains unblocked. He had just 2 edits in October, to the Troy Davis article. The dilemma now is what to do about edits he made in his 4 days here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paranoia

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Continued personal attacks

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

    Vandalism

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

    Suspected sockpuppetry

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

    --RoadAhead =Discuss= 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified him of this discussion and by the way, the prior discussion is archived here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think Satanoid is out of line, I believe that he or she sincerely and honestly does not understand Wikipedia at all, and is firmly convinced that those of us who are taking the article away from Satanoid's intended path are indeed extremists or their sympathizers who are vandals damaging Wikipedia. I see no examples of excellent behaviour from any current active editor on the article, though Satanoid is PERHAPS the most overt in the lanugage and insults. I see that only as a matter of degree though. And yes, I include myself in that list. I see several places where I might have done better. I do wish the personal attacks and edit warring would end. If any heavily experienced editor would care to send me mail through wikipedia, I would very much appreciate suggestions of ideas for how to have helped more. One editor who I asked said "Run away quickly.", and I understand that advice better now. :) sinneed (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what in the world is going on at User talk:67.194.202.113? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Sockpuppetry? --wL<speak·check> 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably and fairly pathetic if so. Ok, I've warned him yet again. If he doesn't shape up, I'll give him a short block to stop this. I do suspect some socking but I'll wait on it. If he's blocked, he can't edit as an IP (although I'm concerned when he's arguing with himself to form a "consensus"). However, you really should work on shorter section headings and just plain writing less. Long complaints like this are less likely to be read, and the addition of the yellow box is just plain obnoxious in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ricky81682, I've removed the color. However, I'm not sure how to trim down the content of complaint. I wanted to include enough history of the disputed behavior (and in time sequence) so that it puts less time burden on the reader to see what is going on. Noted the section heading advice for future as well; leaving it intact for now because it may break (not sure) the links in the message I left at couple of other pages. --RoadAhead =Discuss= 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Speaking of RfCs, have you thought about establishing a conduct a Conduct Request for Comment for User:Satanoid? --wL<speak·check> 06:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a user problem. I mean, it's clearly a user problem but the issue is bigger than that. Look at Talk:Sikh extremism. 90% of that is on an argument eliminated here, because it actually belongs elsewhere. The archives are full of stupidity like "I was warned so here's a three paragraph explanation of why I was warned" and arguments about edit summaries. None of which are relevant. There's got to be huge socking going on as multiple new users shouldn't be able to put in complex ref formatting for the same articles. However, all's well. This still doesn't compare to the fun I was having before. At least nobody's accusing me of Holocaust denial again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be concerned that the RfC would only result in more soap-boxing. The squabbling is already so very bad.sinneed (talk)

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

    It is rather amazing when, in the middle of a series of insults, a person will insist they have never insulted anyone. sinneed (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add he has been at it again here, targeting a fellow contributor to Sikh-History.com (because he thought Randip was me). This shows clearly he has been involved in Internet trolling in the past and posting anti-Sikh sentiments before. I really wish people like this would get a life and be more constructive. Just for the record sikh-history.com is a veryn anti-Khalistani site.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have given the wrong link. The section That's all folks was my creation to notify people that I am no longer editing under that IP anymore. Satanoid's edits were in the previous section. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sikh terrorism

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

    That, combined with this which followed from a bad faith assumption, was enough. I've blocked him for a day. If he wants to work with others, he can when he returns. If there are socks continuing this, tell me and his block will be worse as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Sikh terrorism a POV fork? If anything, sources are more likely to talk about Sikh terrorism than about Sikh extremism, though the two are obviously related. I think you misunderstand what has happened Sikh extremism. One side of the dispute got tired of fighting, and so stopped editing. In Satanoid's case, if he over-fought and got blocked. Now the article is completely skewed in favor of the whitewashers. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He started Sikh extremism, tried to get the article renamed, lost that argument, tried to get theocratic and undemocratic in the lead, lost that argument, and then created a new article to get those in the lead. Add in a long history of bad faith statements and blatant lying and I'm done playing games with him. He was warned enough and knew exactly what he was doing. You yourself are starting down the same path and should stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was the one who tried to get it renamed, but yes, I didn't appreciate how Satanoid added "undemocratic" without using a source. I think I left him a note about that, not that it would change his behavior. The problem is when people edit based on their personal opinion of the ideas under discussion rather than what most sources say. Your claim that I am "starting down the same path" is absurd and demonstrates that you either have not investigated this conflict properly (see my note on your talk page), or you have entered as a non-neutral player. The most that could be said ill of me is that I used language other users considered patronizing ("fella," "buddy," "honey-chile," etc), but I have since realized that they have no joviality in this conflict, so I no longer use these terms. Aside from that, I challenge you to show a time when I have not been acting to uphold WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and other content policies. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not in the mood to play wiki-lawyer games with you. Comments like this and honey-chile are not remotely civil; others told you they were patronizing and to stop it, and now you act surprised that people didn't like it. Your passive-aggressive comments are clear at the talk page and I'm not interested in going further on it. Adding that you are no longer going to assume good faith is far from helpful. Your comments that "once they find a reason to get rid of" one source, you'll simply drag in more to get what you want is not the way to do things. Why not just actually come out with your sources, as opposed to this strategy of flooding everyone with a source at a time until we all tire and you get what you want? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper use of MfD page?

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

    That MFD seems to be only missing a formal declaration of war - the mud is flying in both directions thick and fast. Orderinchaos 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you both of you just quit discussing it (you've both made your opinions clear) then you'll be fine. Secondly, you cannot decide that there is a consensus to keep as it's (the page in your userpace) actually written by you, and, to me, it looks pretty even leaning towards delete. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have also provided a copy of the page to Guido. seicer | talk | contribs 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that was a poor decision, since there was no consensus to delete at all. So, please restore the page forthwith. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean it wasn't resolved the way you wanted it to be resolved. There's only so much that can be done here on ANI - this is not the place to have a full-blown debate on your userspace page. If you don't like the way the MfD was resolved, take it to DR. Tan | 39 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean it was resolved because a user who voted delete unilaterally decided it was.
    I've asked for a delete review. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I cannot find listed? seicer | talk | contribs 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 17 CIreland (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The bigger picture - banning?

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

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

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

    D'ohh! The initial "experiment" post I was thinking of is at his upage, not talk. Other than that, my comments stand. Franamax (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI post by Carcharoth: [17] who I believe had tried to defend and engage with the editor in question - the more fool he in retrospect, got voted against as part of an experiment. Note that at that time, GdB had indicated that he would no longer edit on en:wiki - this is obviously not the case though.Franamax (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The RFC page was to support discussion of a community ban (I only used an RFC page because I didn't want to create another sub-page); I'm hoping to finish it today or tomorrow to move to AN. I'm of the opinion that the info on the page will be more useful to unfamiliar editors if it's complete (thus worth waiting a day or two before asking for wider consensus on a block or ban) but ultimately it has to be convincing, not comprehensive (but if it's comprehensive, then there's no argument we're only getting part of the story). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Since I spent time trying to understand and help others understand what might be happening with Guido I was very upset when he announced his experiment. (Note that when I said this to him he said he was just a messenger which can be seen on his user page.) Since this announcement, there is the information being gathered at WLU's subpage which has the input of other editors and is overwhelming in what it shows going on in the past year with disruptions leading up to the experiment and even more after the announcement. After the announcement there has been multiple claims of 3RR violations with only one of them having a result of protecting the CFS page because of edit warring. There are the debates going on about the deletion of the experiment in two locations (difs already provided for what I am saying so I will not repeat.), a note to Jimbo calling for WLU collections of difs to be deleted again after MFD voted against the deletion and so on. This is out of control already. I tried to see if I could help the situation and I am sorry I couldn't. I finally stopped with frustrations about all of this. Basically I am sorry to say that Guido stated there is a phase 2 going on now and I worry that more disruptions will continue. This (which he deleted after a while) pretty much says it all for me about the situation. This thread made me give up on this whole situation and agree with the other editors that Guido is here for other reasons than to help the project. Sorry it has come to this as I do not take this lightly. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Although my interactions with Guido in the past have been solely with this MFD and its associated DV, and a report I filed at 3RR for edit warring 11 months ago, I have had little to no comment regarding this user. Continually seeking "uninvolved administrators," Guido has continued to make attempts to game the system, and we are running out of these so-called "uninvolved" individuals.

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

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

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

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

    [19] seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seicer, this is not a Guido diff. I have looked at comments made by WLU which are illogical (WLU's contribution is damaged by Guido's userpage) and am inclined in the absence of evidence to stengthen my oppose. Please provide a diff which shows a bad Guido content edit. I am not saying it is the case here, but I have seen some very nasty gang behaviour on wikipedia that is to the huge detriment of content. Mccready (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could search for "You seem to have a poor memory" on this page, you could look at this work in progress (the ones dated Dec. 2008 might be clearer, and note that it's ugly, sprawling, not well sorted or triaged, but I'm pretty sure if you read even a sampling you'd see an idea), you could also check the social experiment here, which was deleted in a different version. For pure content, there is this removal of a reliable source, and this, this, this and this set of talk page discussions that clearly supports ME and CFS being the same entity in the mainstream medical establishment, yet this edit still pushing the idea that it's not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fair enough; obviously there is more that I have not chosen to put up here, I'm still only gathering and have yet to sort. I am getting close to contemporary with my review of contributions, after which I will start to more cleanly assemble representative diffs and sections. There will be a lot to read for anyone unfamiliar with Guido. There are content issues here as well, and content issues are notoriously difficult and slow to demonstrate since any editor who is not familiar must become so in order to render an opinion. One other issue that has raised many hackles, mine included, is the "social experiment". I'm of the opinion that there's multiple reasons for a block, and that's one of them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I look forward to your evidence and that of Seicer. Could you notify me only of content diffs when you have them. I'm quite capable of analysing them. I disagree with your take on the "experiment". We should focus on content on wikipedia.Mccready (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the time, I would suggest reviewing the talk pages for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis (which is now an archive on talk:cfs since the pages were merged - talk:myalgic encephalomyelitis will take you there directly. There are several lengthy discussions on whether ME and CFS are considered separate, and if it is undue weight to have a separate page; I think consensus was pretty significantly demonstrated that the answers were no and yes, yet even three months after the last discussion there is still pushing to discuss the conditions separately without the inclusion of new sources to justify re-opening the decision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    You are aware that Guido has already been blocked 7 times? I don't see how you can argue someone is not being disruptive when they have been blocked seven times. --Smashvilletalk 18:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Users actions over the last day indicate his sole purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia, whether it be the retaliatory MfD, the reposting of material against consensus, the forum shopping, etc. I've also never seen anyone get so riled up about not being blocked for 3RR (I didn't want to escalate the situation). It's extremely clear he has no intentions of ever working collaboratively...and I expect a long string of unblock requests with wild accusations and quite possibly legal threats after the block is made. --Smashvilletalk 18:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Strong support ban for the reasons given, but mainly for the general disruption to the goal of the project. The number of edits this user makes to mainspace (less than 800, but many have been reverted) are vastly outweighed by the disruption and time wasted by these and other activities, as proven by his "experiment" and block log, and the huge catalogue of disruption, evidenced by WLUs sterling work. Verbal chat 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban: Guido has been disrupting Wikipedia for ages, and I believe he's already banned at nl-wiki. He has the results of his experiment, so he can leave us alone now, and stop trolling. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, and in the past, thought that activities on other wikis aren't really applicable here; different rules, different community. I would rather he be blocked or banned based on his disruption of this community than on his activities on another. My opinion, I think nl.wiki should be kept away from this discussion - apologies Dendodge, I agree with the result but I think the process is better if kept clearly on this site alone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional support - based upon initial review here; however, a deeper analysis is needed for the prospect of banning - so I will return soon. Caulde 19:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose ban: I disagree with Franamax's belief that Guido's "statements carry a strong connotation that he regards us as a bunch of fools, to be experimented on at will." Guido is not conducting the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment--both of which were conducted by Ivy-League researchers, and both of which seriously messed up some of their participants. What I sense here, in the opposition to Guido's efforts, is a post-Milgram, post-Stanford aversion to being "guinea pigs" in someone else's activities--an aversion that allows people to overlook the prosocial intentions of any sensible "social experiment." What I sense in Guido's efforts is a benign attempt to understand and improve the encyclopedia; indeed, he has explicitly offered suggestions for improvement. Sure, his approach is a bit peculiar, and it doesn't amount to directly building the encyclopedia. But the same thing could be said of ANI itself; like his experiment, ANI provides an occasionally dramatic, occasionally enlightening detour through the politics, policies, and polis of the project. ANI, AIV, AfD, RfA, talk pages of various sorts, even MfD--these all might be said to be "social experiments," which Guido is only supplementing. Which leads me to another point. The phrase, "social experiment" is being tossed around a lot, probably because it's a post-Milgram, post-Stanford buzz word with negative connotations, but Guido's initial use of the term was in reference not to his study of Wikipedia, but to Wikipedia itself: "Wikipedia is a social experiment to test the behaviour of human beings in a new, open-door environment with rudimentary government." I'm not sure that I find this description of Wikipedia to be very helpful--after all, what is human life but a massive series of "social experiments"? But I maintain that Guido's efforts are no less "experimental" than ANI itself, and are at the very least more organized. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just found this continuation discussion; nobody thought of informing me. There seem to be several misunderstandings here, the most obvious one that the 'social experiment' in the title of my report would be my experiment. It is not, I have merely filed a report. Cosmic Latte hits the nail right on the head. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guido: according to the deleted content on your user page it is your experiment. You say "The six volunteers, all published researchers, were asked to work on the project in areas of their expertise. Three were to declare their expertise openly, three to keep silent. Instructions for attitude ranged from timid and cooperative to firm and leading, where I was asked to vary between episodes of editing, as well as to indicate vulnerability. We were all furthermore asked to test how a range of policies were functioning in practice, without (purposely) breaking them.". Clearly if you are one of 6 volunteers then it is your experiment, and not just a "social experiment" that you are commenting on. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The most concerning aspect of Guido's behavior, in my mind, has been his repeated legal threats[20][21], which he seems to have used as a bludgeon involving his ban from the Dutch wikipedia. He was blocked, and somewhat inexplicably unblocked, twice for separate legal threats. At no point did he withdraw the threats on-wiki, but claimed after an interval of several days that his legal action had "been concluded"[22] and therefore he should be unblocked. IMO this is against the spirit, but perhaps not the wording, of WP:NLT since he is using (and then quasi-retracting) threats in his rather complicated dispute with Dutch wikipedia. I now suspect the legal threats were part of his breaching experiments designed to test policies while barely skirting overt violations. Even if you ignore the NLT concerns, he is clearly unable to work productively with other editors, and repeated, escalating blocks to this effect have not deterred his behavior. Skinwalker (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose On the basis that I don't like water-cooler ban discussions. We shouldn't make it practice to hold a vote on which editors piss us off. That being said, I do think Guido is being disruptive, stubborn and unhelpful and I understand the clear frustration. I also can't morally justify my position against all responses. Perhaps this is different than if I pulled the trigger and indeffed Guido and then we had a ban discussion. Perhaps that is splitting hairs. But I don't like getting into this practice. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be quite in favour of parking this whole thing, giving me a chance to assemble a readable evidence page, then transferring it to WP:AN for a more measured discussion; I've repeatedly said I think this is premature and there's more value to a solid discussion that has clearer evidence. Is there an {{on hold}} for ANI? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Wikipedia is here so we can build an encyclopedia. That people will abuse the social aspects for their own entertainment or curiosity is bound to happen, but should not be supported. I honestly find it laughable that anyone would commission such a study, especially for the UN, and the (deleted) synopsis on GdB's userspace is more of a well-written troll than an honest summary of a research paper. This user has either played an elaborate prank on all of us for his own entertainment, or abused all of our processes in the name of flawed research. Either way, it is very disruptive behavior, and not welcome on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are a lot of allegations here that I want to respond to, but I cannot possibly keep up with the speed and volume. So please, do this in a proper manner, and allow me a fair hearing. If you make an allegation, provide diffs, so that I can see what you're talking about. I'm just as bad at guessing other people's thought processes as anyone else. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, to do this right, invite users that have worked with me (rather than against me) to give their view as well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support - I've watched this stuff, and my conclusion is that Guido is an immense amount of trouble for somewhere between no and little gain. The "report" doesn't exist, and neither does the experiment: both are transparent attention-seeking trivia and should be ignored William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Haven't we had enough? Legal threats? Disruption? Using this place as a social experiment. It's just getting ridiculous OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose per reasons stated by Protonk. I'd like to add that next to blocks, the editor has had several unblocks as well I'm guessing because the blocks were found baseless. I'm of the opinion that the editor is being mercilessly picked on and ganged up on by a group of wikipedians. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim that I made legal threats, which is a lie, and that I dropped legal actions, which is another lie. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a lie. I apparently misunderstand the situation where you violated WP:NLT and were blocked for a month. Would you care to explain? --Smashvilletalk 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you categorize this? "I am not available at the moment on this wiki. The reason is that I am bringing charges involving another Wikipedian for hacking and sabotage. This will probably take no more than a couple of days. For urgent matters, contact me at meta or use email. I apologize for the inconvenience." (see this diff) Hermione1980 23:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is following policy. If you initiate legal action against another user, policy requires that you do not edit until the action has been concluded (or aborted). A threat is when you say "if you don't do as I want, then I will sue" or something to that effect. Threats are not allowed. Legal action is, but you have to refrain from editing as a precaution. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you did violate WP:NLT, despite calling me a liar for saying you did. --Smashvilletalk 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not violate it, I followed it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wondering if the disagreement between Smashville and Guido is an interpretation of WP:NLT. It seems to me that Guido believes that NLT refers only to editing while legal action is ongoing. Am I correct, Guido, or is there something else I'm missing? Hermione1980 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLT is a very confusing page (it appears) because it tries to address two entirely different things, and has a misleading title (see also its talk page). It refers both to legal threats and to legal action. Most of the time, however, legal threats don't lead to legal action, and legal action is not preceded by legal threats. Imagine, for instance, that someone announces that he is coming to your house to get you. You won't be responding with "if you do that, I'll sue"; instead (if you believe it is a real danger) you will immediately alert the police. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have gotten so far off base is. The point is, contrary to Cheers Dude's assertion, the block was warranted. --Smashvilletalk 00:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have. Instead, this is more like things should be discussed. No, a block is not warranted. The policy does not say that you should be blocked for the duration, only that you should not edit. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It says it all over the place. "However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels," is the third sentence. Or the second sentence of the third paragraph, "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Regardless, you have been blocked for it twice. Right now is not the time for you to argue the merits of a policy. --Smashvilletalk 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read again. Your quotes support precisely what I say. The third sentence applies here, but not the third paragraph, since that deals only with legal threats which I did not make. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, now isn't the time for discussing the merits of a policy. --Smashvilletalk 00:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I would say this is as good a time as any, since without an explanation you don't seem to understand the policy very well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count eight separate blocks. Five blocks were served in full. One was reversed two hours later. One indef block for legal threats was lifted about a month later, another was lifted four days later. All other blocks/unblocks were either to change the length of time served or, in one case, to reverse the e-mail block. I have compiled a list of these arranged from earliest to most recent which I can post, if requested. Note: I have no history with this user, and therefore no knowledge of any actual or assumed legal threats. I only know what is posted on the block log. Hermione1980 22:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse ban - Wikipedia is a online Encyclopedia, and as such the editors should be here to improve or contribute constructively to building and maintaining it. Guido_den_Broeder has not done either, and instead used it as his personal play ground in which to conduct inappropriate "social experiments." Just like Myspace, there are plenty of other creative web sites out there that Guido_den_Broeder can participate in but Wikipedia should no longer be one of them. Why do we waste so much time dealing with such clearly disruptive users, when common sense would dictate that we just remove the disruption and continue on with the productive work that every other Wikipedian is able to do. I can not even count the number of AN/I threads, blocks, and unblocks that have accumulated as a result of Guido_den_Broeder's behavior and I am not too sure why we continue it to happen. I say we show him the door, enough is enough. Tiptoety talk 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably because due process requires that you provide evidence. So far, nobody has produced even a single diff to a disruptive encyclopedic edit. Merely stating that a user is disruptive or is no asset to the project does not settle anything, as is proven exactly by the numer of procedures which are all pretty much identical: a lot is claimed, but nothing is substantiated. This is not a vote. Give WLU the opportunity to present his evidence and judge after we've seen and discussed it, not before. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth counting is the number of admins who declined unblock request - each is another admin who reviewed the block and believed it was justified. I think there were three unblock requests per block, making it a total of perhaps, 24 endorsements plus the eight original (estimates); Guido has blanked his talk page a lot, making it hard to review the unblock requests sometimes, and in other cases to see comments by other editors. Of note are these versions right before a blanking - [23] from me
    Diffs of Guido's talk page when comments are removed during October block - [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (and I'm still concerned about civility), [30], also note in particular the conditions Guido asks for for his unblock here (redundant to previous links), which not only misrepresents the blocking admin's position, it also ignores all the block reviews and asks essentially the impossible, if not downright unfair - that his blocklog be cleaned out. Why would this happen? Everyone else lives with their logs, and the blocks were not overturned, people agreed they were justified in principle (possible exception of first). Also note the sometimes bewildering statements by Guido, such as an apparent self-imposed 1RR restriction, and this statement which kinda stunned me given the continuous push for separate pages for ME and CFS. As well as the comment that he wasn't aware of this ANI discussion, which he started. talk page discussions tend to get long, confusing and complicated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, we have a bunch of diffs now. Can you explain what they are supposed to show? How does keeping my talk page short disrupt the encyclopedia - has it hindered you to edit articles in any way? Why should we be concerned about your occasional bewilderment? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Are we in a hurry? Can't we wait for people who have been working with me (and are not even aware of this thread yet) to provide their comments? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those weren't diffs, they were permalinks - now they're diffs. Also note that these aren't comprehensive by any means, this is just from one block during October. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. You fail to explain why you brought them up. You claim that I am a disruptive editor. You have been asked multiple times to provide evidence for that, but so far we get nothing. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See also

    See also:

    User:Ragusino, part #3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WP:SSP?

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

    I try to get to at least one or two every few days, but I start at the top of the list. There are so many inactive or outdated cases at SSP. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your frustration. What I normally do is locate an admin that has processed a sockpuppet report about the user before, and notify that admin of the report. Since they are familiar with the case, it usually gets handled pretty quickly. If that fails, I just beg an admin that I have a good working relationship with to process it. What's frustrating is that the report rate really isn't very high. If a three admins just processed three reports a day, that backlog would be go away and not come back. It hasn't got anywhere near the traffic of RFPP or AIV.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I'm just not sure if I have a good working relationship with seasoned admins. Either that, or I'm internalizing that I burned my bridges when I had a meltdown a few months ago... Well, I'll just wait and see. If the user I've reported gets too unruly, I'll just post it here and hope for the best. At the moment, it's fairly easy easy to contain, more like a splinter under your fingernails. Although, sometimes it seems like a CU in conjunction with SSP helps, but I might be just woolgathering on that. Sorry for my rambling :) Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Pigsonthewing

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

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

    You could always try door number 3 - talking to him about it. I assume his reasoning is something like this: if the template is deprecated and should be replaced by {{coord}} wherever it's used, why do you need instructions on how to use it? So, in this case I think Potw's edit was probably correct, although I am firmly of the school of thought that says civil discussion should not take place through the edit summaries of reverts, even if THEY'RE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, you should of discussed it with him first. That said I also agree with his actions; the template is deprecated, so why do we need instructions on how to use it? VX!~~~ 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as this is another thread on WP:DRAMA regarding Docu and Pigsonthewing clashing over coordinate templates, I assume there will be a sub-thread about Docu's continuing refusal to abide by the community norm of putting a userspace link in his signature in a few minutes ? I'm beginning to think atomic clocks could be set more accurately by tuning to these things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure there's a good reason for making it inconvenient for other users to visit Docu's userpage, talk page, and contribs. I just don't know what it is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking the same thing. John Reaves 05:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't want company. His doorstep has a "NOT WELCOME" mat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, has this been discussed before? I think it has. Feels disruptive to me. John Reaves 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it has. It should be somewhere in the black hole of the ANI archives. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look under the heading of "edit war veterans". Bhtpbank (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A collection of socks, revisited

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

    Hi

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

    Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the changes made to the talkpages, but I don't have the shiny red button so someone else will need to block this enormous duck. // roux   23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that it's a sockpuppet; still, it wouldn't hurt to do a CU? VX!~~~ 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sadly, it's probably worth doing because past history suggests the next few days will see more socks appearing daily. Thanks for your advice and help, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's likely that if one appeared, more will follow. VX!~~~ 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The Chubby Brother is Back

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

    IP proving a point

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

    Apparently, he's created an account to continue inserting his agenda into the article. VX!~~~ 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely a sock puppet, but this IP needs to be blocked. Not only is he POV pushing, but he has violated WP:3RR (see here, here, here, and here). I am currently at three reverts and will go no farther; I leave it up to you... VX!~~~ 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, I left a note on his talk page recommending that the dispute be taken to the talk page. I emphasized that the 3RR was taken seriously here on WP and that another violation would result in a block. Hopefully he will be dissuaded and decide to discuss his proposed changes on the discussion page. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    admin abuse

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

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

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

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

    You were actually blocked for edit warring, which I see you started doing again as soon as your block expired. I'd suggest you use the talk pages instead, or you're likely to find yourself blocked again. --fvw* 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with fvw here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly doesn't get it, but final warning left, up to the editor now. Black Kite 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You were informed that you were edit warring not once, not twice, but three times before you were blocked. In addition, you continue after your block to attempt to reinsert the section that had you blocked in the first place. The information is already in the article. --Smashvilletalk 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for a week. An ability to interact with other humans, and an ability to read stuff like WP:EW is required. If he is capable of doing this, he can rejoin us in a week. If not, he should go somewhere else. Edit warring combined with POV pushing equals very little patience from me. --barneca (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, look like Black Kite was warning at the same time I was blocking. If someone wants to reduce the length or see if the warning works this time, I've no problem with anyone overruling me. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with the block. He's blocked for edit warring - not only does he continue it, he makes a complaint about the block which means he very obviously does not get it. Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and it is very obvious that this editor intended to continue his edit warring, I endorse this block. --Smashvilletalk 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. I was going to block myself but changed my mind. Barneca is probably right, in hindsight. Black Kite 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thinking BK...blocking yourself is never a good idea ;-P ♪BMWΔ 12:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies... WilyD 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed.... Black Kite 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a delightful thread! Caulde 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.102.2.128 and the Church of the SubGenius

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

    The edit here[31] is a gripe, not an accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to make peace on that talk page all afternoon. A well meaning editor slapped a notability tag on an obviously notable but poorly cited article about a semi-serious parody religion. The editors there, largely devotees and newbies who do not fully understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, were startled and alarmed. They quickly came up with some references, then criticized the editor for applying a notability tag without doing his/her homework first. The editor defended the tag and told them it was their duty not his/hers to establish notability and they should spend their energies improving the article instead of lashing out. Both sides have been scolding each other ever since. Other than the taunt the comment looks spot on. In fact both sides are right in my opinion. The notability tag was completely according to correct procedure, but it could have been handled with a lot more patience and understanding. It's all moot now that notability is established, so both parties flogging each other over how they should have handled it will not accomplish anything. A little warm-and-fuzzy goodwill on either side would quickly fix things and they could all be editing buddies. This is a perfect application for WP:TEA.
    Update: Cirt did block the IPer for his/her actions. Willking1979 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another update: The IPer continues the gripes on his/her user talk page, despite the fact that the user is blocked. Willking1979 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a mess. I think somebody bit the newbie and he's trying to bite back. IMO an illustration of why escalating some things makes them worse. If someone would patiently and respectfully explain things it would probably do more to diffuse the situation and convince the IP that we're all just random volunteers typing things into computers rather than some nefarious inept bureaucracy. Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – blocked

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

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

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

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

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

    The discussion they're blanking appears to be about 6 months old. Maybe simply archiving it would satisfy them. --Onorem♠Dil 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFPP was declined due to lack of recent vandalism (despite the last one being two hours ago). MuZemike (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Protection of any sort is not given based on when the last edit was. It is done when there is an acute period of severe vandalism. After I took a look at the history, even I won't semi-protect it. —kurykh 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the word "enough" should have been italicized rather than "recent." Or both. Maybe I didn't quite understand what was meant by "lack of recent disruptive activity." Apologies if I had not. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)I looked at it and threw it out, it seems to be an instance of non-notable information being inserted by a full wealth of SPAs that just managed to outtalk and wear down other editors who had to fear edit warring. The talk page had a poll on it, for crying out loud. If I'm in error, feel free to revert me. Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban review

    I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this topic ban discussion[32].Mccready (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like the involved admin--the one who's been working with you all along and knows all the background, etc.--has pretty much already given you an answer, namely: your topic ban still holds; after the first of the year, he'll be back online, and he'll reconsider then. Seems to me like if he wanted you NOT to be topic-banned now, he would have said "No, you're no longer topic-banned." But that's not what he said. Now, if that's not the answer you were hoping for, my apologies; but when you're working with an admin already, and he gives you an answer, and you come looking for another admin to give you a DIFFERENT answer, to me that smacks of admin-shopping. GJC 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With due respect he said he didn't have time to look at it and invited me to seek further review which I have done. To be accused of admin shopping in this circumstance is patently wrong. He also has not considered the block history. I ask an uninvolved admin to look at the facts.
    1. The ban was put in place before I had right of reply
    2. The block was put in place by an admin who said my block history was an important part of her reasoning but then refused to examine the block history.
    3. The block which started this was for edit warring with me placing scientific material on the page.
    4. Consider my views[33] and the extremist views of the editor who opposes lifting the ban.[34]
    5. Even this extremist acknowledges my edits are generally good; with the exception of those who oppose my scientific viewpoint, nobody has said I am not an asset to wikipedia
    6. Despite these facts I have refrained for seven months on an appeal (an appeal I was told could always be made).
    7. The VERY simple solution I propose is to lift the ban (it can quickly be reinstated if necessary)
    Once again I request someone have a look at this properly.Mccready (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Jim Butler is the editor I referred to above. He is an extremist acupuncturist[38]. I'd be happy to point to the discussion which demonstrates each of my points above, including the critical block log evidence (I've been blocked on more than one occasion by trigger happy admins who apologised). To save time I will not do so at this stage. I ask the question, given my good content edits (this ban started with edit warring which I have apologised for) why not remove the topic ban? It can EASILY be reinstated if necessary. Let me also ask what comes first in solving wikipedia disputes[39]? Mccready (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironic to allude to WP:NPA and then, when I post relevant diffs from previous dispute resolution, reply with an ad hominem attack. --Jim Butler (t) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so, Mccready, as far as I am concerned the answer is that your topic ban unquestionably still stands, and if you carry on as you are then we will widen it to a full site ban. Long experience shows that you are unable to work productively with people on this, a subject where you have strong personal feelings. You don't seem to have demonstrated an ability to work productively with those who have a different view on other subjects where your feelings are less strong, so the topic ban is not likely to be lifted any time soon. Which is merely to reiterate the state of debate as at yesterday, [40], which for some odd reason appears to have vanished, or maybe that's just me. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvagnya's removal of talk page contents!

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

    I'm not sure I'd call it "abuse" of the talk page, but as I read it, I wasn't sure what the point of it was--that info can be found by examining old diffs. It looks like somebody is collating info for some sort of argument/discussion/debate, possibly about something in the history or the naming or the editing of the article--in which case it DOESN'T belong on the talk page of the article, but on a userpage instead--in fact, I'd venture to say it belongs there regardless of WHAT it's for. Now, having said that: have you ASKED Sarvagnya why it was removed? GJC 06:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi GJC, I just noticed this. I'm the person who had made the posts that were removed. Yes, I did leave messages for user:Sarvagnya both on his talk page and the article talk page. Here is one of those posts: Please explain removal of content. He hasn't replied to either post yet, but it is certainly possible that he hasn't seen them yet. Well, since you are here and answering questions, I might as well ask you the same questions.
    I made the posts because I believe a controversial page move was made without previous or concurrent discussion on the talk page and without requesting a move. When I attempted to revert the page move, user:Sarvagnya reverted my revert somewhat peremptorily. The page in question, whose new name is Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE, and which was formerly called Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, is the mother page of the literature section of an article, Kingdom of Mysore, currently in FAR (see here). The "Kannada literature" page has had four page moves, the last one—which I consider controversial—on December 16. It is being prepped for an FA drive itself and is also undergoing a peer review; furthermore, the page was given its previous and longest-lasting page name in this edit of 12:54 13 October 2007, which cited "consistency with other Kingdom of Mysore sub-articles." Both user:Sarvagnya and user:Dineshkannambadi (the primary author) are now pooh-poohing this "consistency," and neither has replied to my post about it in the FAR (please scroll to the end of the FAR link above and read my post #12). Caught in this impasse, I was attempting to state on the talk page why I considered the page moves controversial, as a prelude to making posts at WP:Request move to ask an admin to look into it.
    If you, GJC, think the record itself belongs to my user page, I'm happy to move it there; however, I still need to make a post on the "Kannada literature" talk page, asking the authors why—in light of the evidence I have—they didn't go through the proper page-move protocols. Should I go ahead and make those posts (with links to my user subpage)? Finally, doesn't WP:TALK also say: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was neither vandalism nor personal essay, it was 100% related to the article. Is someone allowed to remove talk page contents because they do not agree with them? Docku: What up? 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not. That's practically the main idea of WP:TALK. Again, though, I think we'd better wait to hear from Sarvagnya before we make any conclusions...GJC 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now moved the evidence to a user subpage of mine and refactored the original posts in the form of questions; see here. We will have to wait and see if user:Sarvagna chooses to revert these as well. I do agree that the posts read better when the evidence is in the subpage, so one of my questions above is somewhat moot now. I would still like an answer to my second question above about striking out the comments of others. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably a better place for this info, and it has the added advantage of being in your own space, where (for the most part, and with certain narrow exceptions) it's safe from being reverted/removed. If User:Sarvagnya chooses to revert THERE--well, then we've got an issue--but I highly doubt that will happen. GJC 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, in my previous interactions with User:Sarvagnya, he chose not to respond when reported for incivility or talk page violations. I can dig up and present those evidences if needed. I would not be surprised if he doesnt respond at all again. Docku: What up? 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I won't attempt to comment on the first two points--I'm looking to discuss them with another admin first--but I find your third point--that messages addressed to a specific user should not be on the talkpage--to be needlessly strict. If the other user is asking questions re: your actions with regard to a specific article, those questions are equally relevant whether they're on the article's talk page, or your personal talk page. More later, after I find someone else to discuss this with. GJC 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood my third point. I have no problem as long as the post on the talk page has to do with discussing the article or even my edits to the article. Here however, the post does not discuss the article or my edits to the article at all. Sarvagnya 21:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing long messages are just going to confuse people here. Are you really serious Fowler's message violated WP:TALK? A mistake or misunderstanding does not become correct because somebody else also did the same. The issue is that Dinesh removed the contents first, cautioned by me (my edit summary:Pls do not remove genuine talk page contents. next time, you will be reported to relevant notice board) which was meant to everyone (including you) who was later going to do the same thing, you removed it regardless which led to my reporting here. The only reason I did not mention Dinesh here was because he heeded the caution and you didnt. I agree I should have mentioned Dinesh' incidence for better context. Docku: What up? 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, When I had once brought up an issue related to Ant-Hindi agitations, you had once mentioned if it has to do with article content, you take it to the article's talk page.. not an individual editor's talk page which was later called wrong by User:Redvers here. I have no problem discussing issues with you directly, but I am greaty concerned of your understaing of WP:Talk and other guidelines and therefore having any meaningful discussion with you. Docku: What up? 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first paragraph of his first post above, user:Sarvagnya, refers to "every single injunction" listed in WP:TALK section, how to use article talk pages. My copy of the Complete OED lists "injunction," to be "The action of enjoining or authoritatively directing; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order." Perhaps user:Sarvagnya would like to explain how the guidelines in that section constitute injunctions in the same way that contents of the section Maintain Wikipedia Policy do or the admonition, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. does; furthermore, he still has not explained what part of WP:TALK he used to override the latter admonition.
    As I have stated above, I agree that the long posts I initially made (and that user:Sarvagnya removed) best belong to user subpages; however, I will note that that in my two years on Wikipedia and in my over 4,000 talk page edits, the only users, that I can recall, who have content blanked my (article) talk page edits are user:Sarvagnya (primarily) and user:Dineshkannambadi. Furthermore, my talk page edits are not the only ones user:Sarvagnya has blanked; I'm sure if someone looked into this, they will find many other examples. Many of user:Sarvagna's content blankings, in my memory, have been accompanied by affectedly cute edit summaries in which one word of the English language (normally used provocatively) is wiki-linked to some Wikipedia guideline or policy. As you will readily see from this previous example of user:Sarvagnya's content removal or from the contents of this this administrative warning to user:Sarvagnya, wiki-linking "oldest trick in the book," to association fallacy (in his post above) is but a very benign example of this editing style. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The contents Sarvagnya removed and Dinesh called "trolling" are probably one of the rare high quality talk page contents in comparison to messages like this we come across everyday in wikipedia. It is regretful that users who post such messages are blamed for others'inability to comprehend and make relevance of it. Besides, if it is of any relevance, I would also like to point out here that User:Fowler&fowler is a professor. While I also may agree such complex issues could be kept in user subpages and links provided to article talk pages, removing them with same level of respect as one would remove vandalism is borderline vandalism. Well, User:Sarvagnya could have politely asked him to keep those contents in User sub pages and summarise more comprehensivley. Docku: What up? 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR violation at Sean Hannity

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

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is probably more suitable. Docku: What up? 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) A major exception to the WP:3RR rule, is when dealing with biographies of living people. See WP:BLP. I took a look at the edits, and though there are a lot of reverts, I'd say they're warranted since the information at issue is negative information about a living person. I'd recommend continuing discussions at the talkpage, and don't re-add the information unless there's consensus to do so. --Elonka 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a content dispute, and the disputed content is basically a POV-push on the part of the poster here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe this is a 3R violation. The material is being disputed and I have asked repeatedly that it be discussed before being added back in. Jimintheatl is being slightly deceptive by saying that I am the only editor objecting since the discussion hasn't even been going on for a day. Unfortunately, there are two editors taking turns re-adding the info before it is talked out and it makes it appear that I am engaging in an edit war while they remain under the 3R (althought Jimintheatl has added the info 3 times in the past 24 hours himself). I've made 3 requests for discussion before adding the contentious material. I don't feel that a request for discussion BEFORE adding contentious material in a WP:BLP article is unreasonable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're named accounts, the only thing that would work is full protection. HalfShadow 23:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they've reached some sort of accord now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kate Morgan and Talk:Kate Morgan

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

    User Johntcullen and an IP address user have also been using the article and talk page as forums regarding the facts and their respective opinions of the subject rather than the best way to incorporate each's opinion into the article [example diffs: [41], [42] (reverted), [43], [44] (Johntcullen revert - see edit summary)]. I warned both with Template:uw-chat2. Additionally I warned Johntcullen with Template:uw-own2, as he seems to take exception to any deletion/modification of his content.

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

    IP addresses involved include 24.27.72.98, 24.175.68.222.

    I need help with:

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

    KuyaBriBriTalk 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Lindale13

    Lindale13 (talk · contribs)

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

    Wow...around 300 edits...all but 4 to userspace...--Smashvilletalk 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    S/he seems to be mirroring userpages and awards pages. WTF? // roux   18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed...(see below for examples)--Smashvilletalk 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking we speedy delete them all as GFDL violations? --Smashvilletalk 19:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ccd03003 (talk · contribs)

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

    Already blocked him as spam-only (it was taken to AIV). --Smashvilletalk 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate mail from user who was warned

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

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

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

    User:Bedford blatantly breaking policies...

    I am sure that you are aware of the desysopping of User:Bedford by User:Jimbo Wales. On his userpage, he mentions this:

    I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.

    That is the third paragraph... He is breaking Article 10 on WP:NOT and breaking WP:NPA wich that quotes includes a vague concept of a personnal attack...

    What is the game plan? --Mixwell!Talk 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This has been a concern of mine for some time, and just last night I emailed Bedford in regards to the content on his userpage asking him to please remove it and he failed to. I think there is a very easy solution here: Bedford removes the content and we all move on, no need for drama, no need for arguing, no need for blocks. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reread the rules, and no rules were broken. People may wonder what happened when they see such a valuable user and yet somehow he does not have the status he deserves. Besides, if you look at [45] you can see Mixwell is clearly just wanting to agitate. Best for him to apologize to me, and move on.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bedford please, do not turn this thread into your soap box. The community is asking you to remove content from a userpage that belongs to them that violates WP:NPA and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Please respect that, remove it, and move on. Tiptoety talk 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not Bedford's friend, nor I am his enemy. I have worked together with him, and I have disagreed. I feel that the comments should be removed because of their connection to a past moment, and we should be concerned with future progress. I hope this comment is neutral, and I hope other comments on the issue are equally neutral so we don't turn this into a fight about past problems, personal differences, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as Scotty Peterson wanted to silence his wife, so to do some want this removed.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that I am better looking and not as creeping as Peterson, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pfft As is typically the case with these kind of remarks, they have the opposite effect to that which the author intended - which kind of makes it hard for me to get my knickers in a twist about them. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not bring external affairs to flame this thread... --Mixwell!Talk 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Generalissimo. Remove the comments. They may have won the battle but they will not win the war! Synergy 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=258896315"