Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Blocks made by Admin User:Esanchez7587

Esanchez7587 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

User:Esanchez7587's block of USEDfan (talk · contribs) just now, where he blocked the account as a "vandalism-only account". I have no opinion on the actions of this user other than it most certainly was not a vandalism only account, nor does there seem to be any vandalism, as we define it. But hey, maybe the guy had it coming for a number of reasons, who knows, but then I started looking at other blocks by Esanchez7587 [1] and started to get concerned. At User talk:Esanchez7587#Use talk:Rashadtyler one admin unblocked a user, asking "Did you really block him, without prior warning, for creating a single non-notable musician article? I think that's a bit excessive, and the article was also not a nonsense article, as stated in the block rationale."

I'm particularly concerned about the blocks for "Creating nonsense pages" and constant use of indef blocks as the very first block, and without any prior warning. I think some of these blocks are likely in need of review. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Ned Scott; of the first half dozen blocks I reviewed I have no problem with only 2 (the schoolblock and the adolf guy one). Of the "vandalism only" blocks I see both good faith edits and other useful contributions, and the nonsense block is just wrong. Again I agree that indef tariffs appear too harsh for what is often "first offences" in most cases - especially given the inaccuracy of the reasons. Lastly, I saw a case where Esanchez7587 both issued a only warning and then blocked after the next violation - I am uncomfortable that any one admin should be both judge and executioner unless the situation is serious enough (which I don't think this is).

I would comment that I have seen Esanchez7587 taking AIV reports, and have previously not noted anything untoward. In case Ned Scott hasn't, I will invite Esanchez7587 to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to 55 hours, adding onto time already served so that total duration is 65 hours, and noting that this is the third block for disruption or edit warring. seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled this out of the archives since there's still a large number of other blocks that should be looked at. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this guy still be an administrator if he's blocking people willy-nilly?--RadioElectric (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends, if we give him yet another chance, and he learns to be less excessive with the block button, then he can remain an administrator. Conversely, if he chooses to continue these blocks, then he should most definitely have them revoked from his account. That being said, an administrator should already know if a block is excessive. Valtoras (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister unblock clarification

Following the unblock of user:Poetlister, there was some degree of (predictable) contention on the user's talk page whether the user was in fact properly blocked or not, and whether evidence supported this.

I feel strongly that this information would be worth summarizing to clarify the situation once and for all.

I have documented the circumstances and evidence of the blocks as part of my review of the block at ArbCom. To do this, I re-examined the evidence completely from scratch one last time, without any assumption whatsoever, from the original contributions, logs, and checkuser findings. I also (from scratch) rechecked the contribs for possible stacked pages, and every email on arbcom-l archives from 2005 onwards covering Poetlister's block, not relying on hearsay or others' self-selected evidence there, either.

In brief, the evidence that the eleven accounts concerned were abusive sockpuppets, was exceptionally strong. It covered both checkuser and behavior. It was as compelling as Archtransit; indeed as compelling and more extensively reviewed and rechecked than any other admin sock case I am aware of, ever.

Background

What ended up as the Runcorn sock ring was originally detected and blocked as sockpuppets of RachelBrown in 2005. It was unblocked not because of a flaw in the findings, but in effect, for good faith and a second chance, the unblocking admin specifically commenting to that effect on arbcom-l email and multiple others agreeing with the findings (see block log). Nine hours after Poetlister was blocked, the account Runcorn was created, which acted as a "good hand" account, and was RFA'ed in August 2006. (More specifically, Poetlister was blocked at 21:52, December 21, 2005, and Runcorn was created 12:36, December 22, 2005, nine hours later) Following RFA, the Runcorn account immediately (2 - 4 days later) began experimenting with unblocking and soft blocking anonymous proxies, and the entire sock ring moved to tor to hide their IPs and provide an alibi (both "Poetlister" and "Taxwoman" claimed later that nobody ever shared their PC and Poetlister stated if there was other use of the IP it was due to use of tor). The Runcorn account was routinely used to soften the hard IP-blocks on open proxies for the benefit of the other socks. However despite these attempts at obfustication, we were able in 2007 to checkuser them again and re-confirm they had indeed all been very likely using the same PC despite their claims. (Prior to this, on many dates the socks had used the same internet connection often minutes apart, one after the other.)

We looked closely at the alibi given, that these were all extremely close friends or room-mates. There was strong evidence that claims made by the users, including claims to be different people, were incorrect. Examples of the rebuttals I looked into included: that an SSP report was factually unreliable (filed by someone with a grudge), the block in 2007 was based on 2005's evidence only, the 2005 unblock proved innocence, the 2005 checkuser findings were unreliable, the allegations were tenuously founded. All inaccurate. I reviewed the evidence of the 2005 checkuser findings, and note that Kelly Martin's blog claims don't in any way contradict the core findings of common IP usage, nor do the 2005 findings contradict 2007. They support them. I re-examined the case for meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, or "friends with similar interests" as well. No dice. Sockpuppetry remains the clear conclusion. For me, the evidence is compelling.

Extract - Couldn't it just be multiple users on the same computer?

The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry. Even if Poetlister's contention is true, the treatment is in accordance with well established policy. The account operator had a warning of communal and ArbCom concerns as early as December 2005 -- and the response was to ignore WP:SOCK (which the user obviously knew of) and instead create a new sock account immediately (Runcorn, 9 hours later) and seek to promote it to RFA, where the sockmaster immediately began using it to unblock anonymous proxies and add weight to the abusive agendas and stacking activities of the other existing socks.

All of this then led to a ban for the continuing identical conduct as 2005, plus admin tool abuse, in 2007.

If these were indeed different individuals (not a likely interpretation in the view of the many people who have rechecked the findings over time), then even so there was still gross willful abuse -- stacking via meatpuppetry, edit war team-tagging, and pushing of a COI and POV agenda on Wipipedia and its AFD via the admin account Runcorn and various others, as a sock/meatpuppetry ring.

But our interpretation overall (2005, 2007, 2008) is this is not the case. The view in both 2005 and 2007 (and 2008) was of clear-cut sockpuppetry. Either way, the use was abusive and likely intended to be concealed.

Extract - Kelly Martin's statement

Kelly Martin has stated she felt "pressured" to accept CU findings from 2005.

In fact the findings were considerably stronger than this suggests, showing considerable use by multiple users of the same IP within minutes of each other, for multiple ISPs, on multiple dates. Further CU findings from 2007 showed identical patterns, plus clear attempts to hide these via a (flawed) switch to anonymous proxies. This also allowed checkusers in 2007 to confirm that statements about not having shared computers, were likely to be incorrect.

Since this was May 2007, some 17 months later, and Checkuser data expires after a shorter period of time, the checkuser results being discussed are doubly confirmed as not being the ones KM is talking about, but newer checks in 2007, additional to the 2005 checks (which blatantly supported the same findings in the opinion of all other checkusers). A total of at least 7 experienced checkusers each independently rechecked the Checkuser results on the Runcorn/Poetlister group generally and came to the same conclusion. Additional to all of this there was considerable review of their findings and possible interpretations, by the Arbitration Committee.

Poetlister has repeatedly claimed to have done nothing wrong. This is not entirely accurate. An actual list of debates apparently "stacked" by Poetlister in breach of WP:SOCK includes:

• Talk:List of British Jews (with Newport [2] [3])
• Team tag reversion in an edit war with an IP editor, on Cut to the chase, with Runcorn and LondonEye [4];
• Consensus stacking at Talk:Rosemary Tonks (with Brownlee [5] - Poetlister - Brownlee - Poetlister)
• A significant number of RFAs and AFDs. (See below)

As a sock-farm, these accounts stacked a number of debates (including some 40 RFAs, almost 60 xFDs, and an unknown number of article discussions), tried (incorrectly) to manipulate proxies to allow better hidden abuse or less easy detection following the 2005 block/unblocks, and supported COI/POV based edit warring on articles of interest to the sockmaster.

As the administrator "Runcorn", the sockmaster also mis-stated communal norms to parties disputing with the other socks (to the advantage of the other socks), closed discussions favorably, and spuriously blocked (and attempt to blacken and ban) a user who tried to draw communal attention to these actions, giving reasons that were completely spurious. (The user was quickly unblocked.)

There was also considerable behavioral evidence to support that these were all the same user.

Especially, their conduct towards each other is strange when one considers later claims these are closest of friends, indeed in some cases housemates and real-world friends/old family friends, people who hold hands at the computer, and the like. The behavior of these users on-wiki does not substantiate the story of "extreme close friends" portrayed in their explanations. They did not act as friends. What they did was stack votes, engage in socklike behavior and mannerisms, push the same views on the same articles, edit-war tag support each other, create a new account hours after the old ones was blocked, practice unblocking (and then go all out to soft-unblock) previously hard-blocked anonymous proxies for each other (this was Runcorn's main use of block/unblock for several months in 2007)... and to an exceptional degree try not to be noticed very much as connected accounts.

Unblock

We decided to unblock for one reason, and one reason only. Although the user has engaged in improper activities, they were also bona fide adders of content who have sought to remain involved on other WMF wiki projects, notably Wikiquote. It is a norm of the community that there is always a way back, and we feel that unblocking the Poetlister account for English Wikipedia use will build on the activity at Wikiquote and allow the user concerned to show whether they mean to act well here, almost a year later. It is not exoneration, for the identification as a sock-master was solid and well evidenced. It is rcognition that for whatever reason this was an admin sock-master who - when not abusing admin tools and edit/POV warring - did genuinely add a very wide range of good content as well. There is always a way back for those who wish it and are prepared to show evidence it might work out, and this user is being given his/her chance no less than other users who might be redeemable have been.

Time will tell whether this is a good call. Our hope as a committee is that it will be. For that reason we ask the community to accept the user as one who has sat out their block, and asked for a second chance.

In my mind, it has always been deeply regrettable that no detailed explanation of the evidence was given in 2007. Back then, the methods of analysis were still somewhat new and WP:BEANS was a serious concern when faced with a heavy-duty sock-master who had sought to bury their traces and managed to pass RFA. If it means anything, this is more than words, and we learned from this; the Runcorn admin-sock case and its ensuing dramas were the main reason for the March 2008 Archtransit admin-sock case evidence being explained in full, instead of merely "announced".

All other socks remain blocked and should only be unblocked under consultation with the Arbitration Committee.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee.

One point of impaired logic; Poetlisters claim of no wrongdoing is rebutted by evidence of vote stacking - which is only "wrong" if it is accepted that Poetlister socked (which she denies). I also note that "The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry. Even if Poetlister's contention is true, the treatment is in accordance with well established policy..." means that the determination of socking in the situation that Poetlister describes is a construct rather than unquestionable evidence.

You know, it would have been easier just to say "We accept the remote possibility that we might have got this wrong, so we are lifting the block on Poetlister on the basis that the editor will contribute usefully in the future" - even if you think you were right! Nevermind, it will pass but you sometimes have to admit to wrong even where one thinks there is none just for the sake of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and is done when appropriate. In this case nobody of the many who checked the full evidence has concluded it was "wrong" to the extent that your wording would suggest. There is always a "remote chance" since checkuser doesn't sit with a video feed behind a person's computer, but in practical terms there is a point where one says "it's exceptionally likely enough from the behavioral and checkuser evidence, to say that for Wikipedia communal purposes, it may be treated as one user."

That a remote possibility exists is not the same as acceptance that it is likely. In simple terms, we accept that remote possibility in all sock cases, and try to assess the evidence so that we don't conclude puppetry unless it really does seem to be the likely answer. In this case, that was the repeated conclusion. If a different term is needed for "Sufficiently likely sock to be treated as one", then thats a separate debate. The current norm is such accounts are described as sock puppets. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We have more of a "preponderance of evidence" standard than a "reasonable doubt" standard. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, it's a myth that some of the suspected socks (I don't recall the details but out of Poetlister, Taxwoman and Runcorn at least) voted on the same AfDs often. Also, wasn't there evidence Runcorn was a different person, given he always got up and started editing about 2 hours before the others?Merkin's mum 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The other evidence was rather more solid than "myth". And the stacking was widespread - some 40 RFAs were affected by this sock-master, and at least one user was blocked (with intent to blacken/ban) on visibly spurious grounds. The Poetlister account was involved in the stacking of 18 of the 60 stacked xFDs and 6 of the 40 stacked RFAs. As well, regarding Runcorn, odds that this new account, who has the same agenda, stacks the same areas of debates, uses admin tools consistently abusively to support the same agendas, edits via the same proxies, with other technical evidence suggesting the same connection, that was created 9 hours after Poetlister was blocked and is claimed to be a close family friend, who joins Wikipedia 9 hours after the block but never once mentions the block..... No. When you add up the existence of the sock ring, and the circumstances, use and agenda of the new account, its edit warring on the identical basis to the other socks... and its activities after RFA which basically serve the socking of the other socks... it is clear that beyond any usual level of evidence we normally require, that this was not a different person, but another GHBH sock. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - with below)Which begs the question why Poetlister is now unblocked... now, I going to shut up in case that last point gets too much interest but my point stands; no matter how convinced the ArbCom/CU is about it being correct it may have been politic to allow the principle of the possibility of doubt being the part of the reason for unblocking to be aired. We may not be having this discussion had it were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Most sockmasters on this scale purely disrupt, and go out abusing. That's our reading of the 2005 creation of "Runcorn". But this time, in 2007, through the Poetlister account, this user has made attempts to show good conduct for a long period instead, and with success. The idea that such users can be redeemed is meaningless if never given a chance. We decided to give that chance, as Deskana says, because of the work being done showing possibility for change. Time'll tell how it works out. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To be brief, the Arbitration Committee did not unblock Poetlister on the basis that the block was incorrect, based on faulty evidence, or inappropriate. We unblocked because Poetlister in recognition of the good contributions that have been made to other projects, and because we believe that there will be no further abuse of any kind. That said, this isn't something that needs dwelling on. It's all in the past now. Poetlister is unblocked and welcome to resume editing. Lets be glad of that much, and put the past behind us. --Deskana (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One clarification please: was the unblock made at Poetlister's request, and if yes - did that request contain any admittance of wrongdoing? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

She protested innocence intensely and still does. She is often a contributor to Wikiquote, and I think some of the other projects, and is well respected there.Merkin's mum 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been ongoing requests by various of the accounts to be unblocked - in fact I received my first before even being appointed to ArbCom. So yes there have been requests. And no - no admission was made. To anticipate the next question, it was because any user has the right to appeal a ban (requesting review isn't a problem), so the former isn't an issue, and the purpose of a block is to protect the wiki and we believe the scope for abuse to recur (especially following communal disclosure of past activities and with communal eyeballs) is sufficiently reduced to cover the latter. Obviously if there were any signs of renewed mis-use then the community will deal with it, but as Deskana says, we aren't punitive, we have a year's positive record showing the user can act well on other projects if they wish to, and we hope it's behind us all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something that doesn't make sense to me here. Am I reading this right and the arbitration committee is contending that Poetlister, Runcorn, and lots of other people are really the same person? If so and you want to forgive this person, how did you decide to unblock Poetlister, as opposed to Runcorn or one of the other accounts? Maybe I'm just completely missing something here, but it seems like you (collectively, not you personally) are saying that the checkuser evidence was and is correct, but your actions don't reflect that belief. --B (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. That's been the case since December 2005, and again in May 2007. Yes, same person, same modus, same alibis, same checkuser and behavior evidence, same involvement in same agendas and sock pushing, same stacking on same xFDs and RFAs... Yes.
2. Why Poetlister and none of the others? Because the Poetlister name is the one the user chose to reactivate with elsewhere in the community and gained respect on other wikis under, after the socks were removed from this wiki, and most recently appealed under.
3. The unblock's explained above. It's a chance to show change, not an exoneration of past socking and abuse. (Sorry, bit rushed here, was due out 2 hours ago)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry." - What you've not clarified is whether the other accounts - e.g. Londoneye who is a user in good standing on Wikimedia Commons, Taxwoman who still posts as a separate person on WR, should be considered sockpuppets of this user going forward. Whether it "should be considered sockpuppetry" is quite a different question than whether it is in fact sockpuppetry, since the latter closes the door on ever unblocking any of the other accounts. --Random832 (contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that they were able to provide new pictures on demand does in fact mean they are distinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, whatever their other actions were, so at worst this is meatpuppetry. --Random832 (contribs) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as one can be sure online, the balance of evidence is way, way towards sockpuppetry for all of the accounts. We concluded repeatedly, they are socks not meats. the evidence was very strong, and the alibis weak. Each project acts independently on this, though, as Wikiquote themselves did. Again, apologies, Im outr of the door and will have to follow this thread up tomorrow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Also, how many RFAs had any three or more of the accounts voting in the same direction? How many had any two voting against each other? If you choose a large enough set of accounts, of course you can find numerous AFDs and RFAs that at least two voted on. --Random832 (contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You speak of the "balance of evidence" - what sort of evidence, in your view, would be required to refute this claim? If they (two or more of them) sent real identification (drivers licence, passports, whatever) to arbcom? If they (two or more of them) showed up in person at a meetup? There has to be _something_. --Random832 (contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Random832 above - while I'm neutral on who Runcorn is/was, the sheer difference in styles between Poetlister and Taxwoman, the difference between the articles they edit, and the fact that, if they are one person, they've spent much of the last year arguing with themselves on a certain WP:BADSITE do point to at the very least reasonable doubt. As I've argued elsewhere, Taxwoman at the very least was - and would be again - a net benefit to the encyclopedia, given her willingness to clean up articles most of us wouldn't touch with a barge pole. — iride scent 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Feh, the assertion is that they are all in the same place, presumably at or near UCL. If they want to meet me for a drink somewhere in the City, I'll verify they are all different people. This acto of selfless devotion has nothing whatever to do with the pictures they uploaded of themselves, not at all, nosiree. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, Guy. . .always willing to give until it hurts :-) R. Baley (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do I sign up for this sort of wikiwork or is it an admin thing only ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can some kind of language or edit summary analysis be done like what was done on the Mantanmoreland arbitration case that showed the Mantanmoreland socks had unique edit summaries? William Ortiz (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I went through the various accounts' contrib histories in quite a bit of detail, and absolutely everything (voting and editing patterns, timing, everything), pointed to sockpuppetry. I'm all for second chances, and I always have been, but I would like to see a requirement to admit to socking and identify all socks used before unblocking. That being said, if ArbCom has decided to unblock, well then, it is their decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Did they even have certain unique phrases of speech nobody else used? William Ortiz (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Random832 removed Runcorn from the list of banned users with the rationale: If there is only one person behind these accounts, then who is banned?[6] and an edit summary of Per the official story that all these accounts are still considered the same person who is being allowed to come back as Poetlister - if this story is accepted then the unblock constitutes an unban.[7] I have undo that edit, as Runcorn is still banned, and the Arbitrators have made it clear that this unban is based on the proviso that the harm cant be done with only one account being unbanned. There is no "official story" - there is only what we can reliable deduce, and what we can reliably assume. In this case, the CUers are saying they can reliably deduce that there was abuse of WP:SOCK, and due to Poetlisters continued fruitful involvement in other projects and her own recent commitments to not edit via open proxies we can reliably assume she is a dedicated Wikimedia and will keep her word. We may never know the true story. Ultimately it doesn't matter - Runcorns use of the admin tool was unacceptable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who said the above - not me - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)]

Why can't the publishable part of the evidence be published in detail as part of the requirements of her unblock? If the community's required to watch her, we should know what to watch for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What to watch for? That is easy : involvement in Jewish related community votes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bans are on people, not accounts. And unless there is some other person involved (which everyone seems to deny), there is no person who is banned. --Random832 (contribs) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the operators of the Poetlister and Runcorn accounts are the same person (which was the whole reason for the ban in the first place), it does indeed seem that ArbCom has, in effect, lifted the ban and allowed that person to again edit under the Poetlister account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Random832, until arbcom removes the ban on Runcorn, your reading of this situation is incorrect. These accounts were banned because of violations of WP:SOCK - that includes meatpuppeting, which is one explanation, however unlikely that might be. As far as I know, the banned users claim they are different people. It is extraordinary that Runcorn is banned yet Poetlister is not, even though there is a significant community belief that they are the same person. Thankfully, arbcom have done the extraordinary and let the Poetlister account resume editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Guy's joke comment above is actually a good one. If these people are all in London, and someone were to meet them "face to face" wouldn't that put an end to all the sockpuppetry talk if many believe it false? If they're all separate people, then, wouldn't they all just have to be unblocked with a big apology? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. It seems like the first step is for FT2 to agree that this would convince him (or to say what further steps it would need) or for Poetlister to agree in principle to do it. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is not sockpuppetry, it is still an extremely unlikely set of events which strongly suggests meatpuppetry and admin tool abuse. The evidence still indicates that everyone involved in this funny business should have been blocked for violating WP:SOCK.

That said, it would be useful for Poetlister and any other real and distinct people involved in this funny business to meet with respected Wikipedians in a face to face scenario - that will result in more clarity in exactly what funny business occurred at the time. Until that happens, I think we should assume that Poetlister was a separate person, in spite of the fact that this assumption doesnt correlate with the evidence, and that she has since gone a long way to win back the respect of the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that Poetlister is a fairly private person and does not wish to meet other Wikipedians, though I may be mistaken. If I am mistaken, she would be very welcome at a London meetup which is happening this Sunday - Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9 - with or without other people who may shed light on the whole affair. WjB scribe 11:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disregard sockpuppetry then it seems that people who had over the course of a couple of years made genuine and useful contributions to content were permanently banned because a minority of their edits were made on the same side of discussions as their friends. That doesn't add up. Any admin tool abuse would be limited to the one who was an admin. I really think meatpuppetry is a red herring here - the case relies on sockpuppetry. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers to some of the above:

1. We consider all eleven accounts as a sock-farm. In cases where a sock-master will be allowed to continue editing, the norm is to block all but one of the identified accounts. The sock-master is allowed to edit under the one account "Poetlister", and the other accounts remain blocked. So in answer to Random832's first question, the evidence of common behavior, concealment, and a range of editing abuses, taken together with timing and checkuser information, makes an extremely strong case that these were intended and used as an abusive sock-ring at the time.
2. We tend to trust hard evidence of behavior rather than vague "style of speech". Writing in multiple styles of speech is easy - hard evidence of mannerisms and IP sharing and common activity is more likely to be telling.
3. In answer to Shoemaker's question, the behaviors to watch for are documented above.
4. Would a live meet-up help? Unlikely. Rustling up a few friends or housemates to pretend being other accounts isn't hard. That's one reason we don't rely on that test generally.
5. Random asks how many of the stacked items had 3 or more socks on them. RFA's with 3 or more socks included: Fan-1967 (3 socks oppose), FT2 (6 socks oppose), Georgewilliamherbert 2 (2 socks support, 1 neutral), Jreferee (6 socks oppose), Marskell (3 socks oppose), Maxamegalon2000 (3 socks support), Michaelas10 (3 socks oppose), Moralis (3 socks oppose), Moreschi (3 socks oppose), ProveIt (3 socks oppose), ... I gave up counting after the first while. It's a similar story on xFDs. Here's the first few entries on the stacked xFD's table (Worth noting - this table is all common edits, not selective):

Page (+ talk page)	Edit sequences
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnon Katz	Newport (11 Mar 07 12:08), Osidge (11 Mar 07 20:52), Osidge (11 Mar 07 20:55) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonkum	Runcorn (05 Nov 06 09:45), Runcorn (05 Nov 06 09:45), Taxwoman (05 Nov 06 12:29) All Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths	Runcorn (07 Apr 07 11:58), Holdenhurst (07 Apr 07 19:01), Newport (07 Apr 07 22:22), Newport (07 Apr 07 23:10), Osidge (09 Apr 07 19:22) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet	Newport (11 Mar 07 12:06), Osidge (11 Mar 07 20:44), R613vlu (12 Mar 07 22:59), R613vlu (13 Mar 07 12:46) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous left-handed people	Runcorn (28 Sep 06 19:12), Runcorn (28 Sep 06 19:12), Poetlister (30 Sep 06 15:20), Holdenhurst (01 Oct 06 10:25) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious Jews	Newport (27 Jul 06 17:40), Brownlee (28 Jul 06 09:57), Brownlee (01 Aug 06 09:48) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish bankers	RachelBrown (15 Nov 05 20:38), Londoneye (17 Nov 05 09:33), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 12:57) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish chess players	Londoneye (22 Nov 05 18:31), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 22:50) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish communists	Brownlee (04 Jul 06 12:25) - Keep, Runcorn (04 Jul 06 19:28) - Keep, Brownlee (05 Jul 06 12:54) - Restore three anon keep votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination)	RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 17:22), RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 21:44), RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 21:46), Londoneye (17 Nov 05 22:39), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 23:38), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 11:33), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 18:23), Poetlister (18 Nov 05 19:16), Poetlister (18 Nov 05 19:24), RachelBrown (19 Nov 05 09:24), RachelBrown (19 Nov 05 20:18), Londoneye (26 Nov 05 21:29), Taxwoman (26 Nov 05 23:29) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors	Londoneye (12 Dec 05 19:02), Newport (13 Dec 05 12:29) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists	RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 20:57), Poetlister (19 Nov 05 09:38), Poetlister (19 Nov 05 09:39), RachelBrown (19 Nov 05 17:53), Poetlister (19 Nov 05 18:10), Londoneye (20 Nov 05 08:56), RachelBrown (21 Nov 05 22:52), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 18:50) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish publishers	RachelBrown (15 Nov 05 22:03), Londoneye (17 Nov 05 09:29), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 12:51), RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 21:35), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 10:43), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 10:46) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science	Londoneye (22 Nov 05 18:37), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 23:20) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices	Runcorn (01 May 07 19:38), Brownlee (01 May 07 21:42), Simul8 (02 May 07 11:33), Newport (02 May 07 19:21) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews (2nd nomination)	RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 10:36), Londoneye (18 Nov 05 11:07) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports	Londoneye (22 Nov 05 18:35), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 22:53) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews	Runcorn (16 Feb 07 21:56), Brownlee (17 Feb 07 22:00), Newport (18 Feb 07 11:47), Holdenhurst (18 Feb 07 22:59), Holdenhurst (19 Feb 07 13:00), Osidge (19 Feb 07 17:50), Runcorn (19 Feb 07 22:00), R613vlu (19 Feb 07 22:52) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans	Newport (05 Jul 06 11:21), Runcorn (05 Jul 06 19:49), Brownlee (06 Jul 06 11:07) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1	Runcorn (21 Mar 07 23:35), Osidge (22 Mar 07 00:30), Holdenhurst (22 Mar 07 16:44), Brownlee (22 Mar 07 23:54), Londoneye (23 Mar 07 12:14), R613vlu (23 Mar 07 13:25), Runcorn (25 Mar 07 13:43) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan	Runcorn (23 Sep 06 21:09), Poetlister (25 Sep 06 16:57) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectified Hebrew calendar	R613vlu (14 Feb 07 12:45), R613vlu (15 Feb 07 23:16), R613vlu (15 Feb 07 23:30), Holdenhurst (18 Feb 07 23:02) - Nominate and delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews	RachelBrown (19 Jul 05 19:59), Poetlister (20 Jul 05 12:44), RachelBrown (20 Jul 05 19:44) All Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia	Brownlee (19 Jun 06 10:15), Brownlee (19 Jun 06 10:15), Taxwoman (19 Jun 06 17:01), Brownlee (20 Jun 06 10:13) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination)	Brownlee (22 Dec 06 13:18), Taxwoman (22 Dec 06 15:50), Taxwoman (22 Dec 06 16:57), Taxwoman (22 Dec 06 17:00), Holdenhurst (22 Dec 06 23:00), Holdenhurst (22 Dec 06 23:03), Osidge (23 Dec 06 21:55), Taxwoman (28 Dec 06 10:56), Runcorn (28 Dec 06 20:30) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (third nomination)	Runcorn (12 May 07 20:10), Brownlee (12 May 07 21:46), Brownlee (12 May 07 21:48), Brownlee (12 May 07 22:13), Runcorn (13 May 07 09:58), Osidge (13 May 07 15:15), Osidge (13 May 07 15:56), Taxwoman (13 May 07 17:36), Taxwoman (13 May 07 17:38), Runcorn (13 May 07 21:20), Runcorn (13 May 07 21:40), Taxwoman (13 May 07 21:57), Taxwoman (13 May 07 22:00), Taxwoman (13 May 07 22:19), Brownlee (14 May 07 14:35), Brownlee (14 May 07 14:40), Brownlee (14 May 07 14:52) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan	R613vlu (04 Dec 06 13:20), R613vlu (05 Dec 06 12:42), Poetlister (06 Dec 06 22:25), Brownlee (07 Dec 06 13:02) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination)	Poetlister (17 Feb 07 19:52), Brownlee (17 Feb 07 21:56), Holdenhurst (18 Feb 07 22:55), Osidge (19 Feb 07 17:54) All Keep
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 16	RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 09:03), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 12:53), Londoneye (18 Nov 05 13:25) All Keep Category:Jewish chess players
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 17	RachelBrown (20 Nov 05 22:19), Poetlister (23 Nov 05 22:02) All Delete Category:Wealthy fictional characters
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 18	RachelBrown (20 Nov 05 22:08), Poetlister (23 Nov 05 22:00) All Delete Category:LGBT_criminals

Any competent sockmaster throws in a few contrary !votes. That's why experienced sock-checkers look at the pattern overall. The pattern overall is, when you strip away the surface, eleven accounts acted almost identically and formed an abuse ring. They also shared IPs. They later all moved to tor (on questionable reasons) and then denied using the same computers, but were in fact detected to have very likely been using the same PCs again, 2 years on. They claimed to be exceptionally close friends but the actual use of the wiki accounts when you look at their effect, was to stack votes, and (for runcorn) to be created 9 hours after the Poetlister block, and to act as an unconnected account, gain RFA, and abuse admin tools for each of the other accounts' benefit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (comment re-signed, got friends staying the week who were logged in. Sorry for the confusion)

Could you shorten that comment in any way? Rudget (Help?) 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "The evidence of socking was very substantial." is the shortened version. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry Rudget, a bit short there I think. But yes, the evidence was heavily looked at. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(comment re-signed, got friends staying the week who were logged in. Sorry for the confusion) Isn't that ironic? --Random832 (contribs) 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re "Rustling up a few friends or housemates to pretend being other accounts isn't hard.", I take it the idea is that a friend comes up to you and says "there's this web site I've been trolling and pretending to be several people on and I got banned from it in May last year... uh yeah, it's been going on a while... and I sort of sent them pictures of you as being one of the people who did stuff they got banned for... anyway, I want you to come with me and meet a guy from the website and tell him you're that person. Oh sometimes I send emails from the person you're pretending to be, asking to be unblocked so if you could remember at least your email address and the general writing style... oh 'unblocked', yes that means 'let back on the website', I'll give you a list of jargon they use like that so you'll be convincing, if you get stuck then keep saying 'AGF'... and here's a list of your interests for the stuff you wrote about and the people you know on the site oh and some offline history I made up about us and some other friends too, you'll need to recognise their pictures and how we all know each other... I almost forgot there's actually more than one web site - you'd better be familiar with your recent contributions to them. Sometimes I've posted both sides of conversations and disagreements between us and others to keep the characters convincing, best if you read them too. Yeah there is a lot to read, I've been doing this multi-account thing for about 3 years...". Is that really a scenario you take seriously? 87.254.71.190 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to the anon. If "edit a lot of the same articles, generally agree on XfD and all geolocate to the same town" is really a criteria, you could just as well say that User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Vintagekits and myself are all the same person. — iride scent 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of "multiple shared IPs" and "near simultaneous use of the same proxies" did you miss in the above statement. (I have experience as checkuser of finding "anonymous" proxies that actually convey quite a lot of information about their users--they make my day.) Funny thing, I thought it was Arbcom that was refusing to budge from a fixed position in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Thatcher 12:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think that the sockpuppetry cliam could be true. However, the fact that the idea of a meetup was dismissed on the grounds that the person involved could explain to a friend that they've been posting under multiple accounts for THREE YEARS for no reason that I can imagine could be convincingly put into words, continuing the deception for a year after having been banned from the website, have implicated the friend by sending in pictures of them and now want the friend to accompany them to meet some stranger from the website... Thatcher, do you take that scenario seriously? 87.254.71.190 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Some of the 'bit player' accounts are actually very likely to be sockpuppets - Not many people are saying there's actually eleven (or however many) different people. Can you write up a list of exactly what accounts used open proxies at what times? Because if it was just (say) R613vlu and Simul8 using proxies, that really doesn't prove anything at all about Taxwoman and Poetlister. --Random832 (contribs) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see in the checkuser log (not the actual data, mind you) it is apparent that either Taxwoman or Poetlister or both were using tor at the time they were checkusered in May 2007, and the IPs are the same ones that Runcorn had previously downgraded from hard blocked to soft blocked. Also note that I have seen tor nodes that were not truly anonymous and passed on certain identifying information. Thatcher 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not the actual data? Do you not have the actual data? --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher was not one of the CUs that did a check while the data was current. There is no need to berate him over that. Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I wasn't berating anyone - I was just confused because I had thought that all the data in question was shared between all the checkusers (or at least all the ones who want to shoot their mouths off about this), and am only just now finding out this is not the case. Don't the checkusers have a mailing list? --Random832 (contribs) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but Thatcher was not even a checkuser back then, so would not have had access, nor would he necessarily have the IP information today, as it's not shared by default. Same applies to me - Alison ^❤ 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a thorough re-investigation, and that this would naturally include seeking second opinions. --Random832 (contribs) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, second, third, ... seventh opinion (not including non-CU arbitrators as well). We have more than seven CheckUsers, though, so I don't know what makes you think that the fact that two of the newest CUs aren't part of that group is surprising or means there wasn't a re-investigation. It's becoming obvious that you are trying to spin everything said about the issue into some evil scheme. You haven't offered anything compelling, and this whole discussion is becoming a distraction. Back to the encyclopedia for everyone here, I say. Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Um. I've just been reading through the thread, and if anyone's comments so far have come across as over the top, it is your comment here, Dmcdevit. Random has been explaining what looks like a misunderstanding, and you are accusing him or her of 'spinning' things, which looks totally unwarranted from where I'm sitting. What I think is the major concern here is that with such a large sock-puppet ring (and I agree, there was at least some sockpuppetry going on here), it is possible that one or two genuine similar accounts operated by other people that appeared to look like socks or meatpuppets, were blocked along with the socks (I presume a full analysis looked at the whole contribution histories for all the accounts?) I also presume the checkusers are not saying that only one person could have been editing from the IP addresses found in the checkusers? There is always the possibility that in future someone will start, or restart, editing with an account from those IP addresses, and if that account ever ends up editing in the same areas and get checkusered, the person operating that account will be walking into a minefield of sock accusations. I wish checkusers and arbcom would consider the new accounts in future that might be started on those IP addresses. I realise that there may be too much of a taint around all this, but there should be the option for real people to have the possibility of e-mailing arbcom and saying "I edit from this area and I got caught up in this. I'm not interested in returning to my old account, but I do want to make a fresh start with a new account, but want to tell you the account name in case there are problems in the future." Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• FT2 (6 [accounts] oppose) - when were you going to tell us about your massive conflict of interest? --Random832 (contribs) 12:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• :That seems a bit of an odd question given that it is FT2 you are quoting... WjB scribe 13:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• ::Yes, he did say it - however, he kind of slipped it in there in the middle of a long diatribe as though he was expecting it not to be noticed. I don't think he should be the one presenting these explanations at all, really - Not because I think he would deliberately misrepresent things, but rather because he's so close to the situation that he may be biased in how he looks at things without even being aware of it. --Random832 (contribs) 13:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• :::You're asking for very specific information, some of which I am hesitant to talk about due to privacy issues, especially recalling some CharlotteWebb arbitration with had to do with Tor as well (though that is less of a concern now, as the Tor seems public knowledge; I forget how that happened or if it was in the original statement); some of which I am hesitant to talk about because of WP:BEANS and educating someone who was a smart sockpuppeteer to begin with, and some of which I am hesitant to talk about, because this has already been reviewed ad nauseam and your attitude shows that you have already made up your mind, regardless of the evidence. It would be nice if you recognized the sensitivity with which some people have tried to approach the issue, and the reason for the reluctance to share everything. Instead, the manner of your dogged pursuit of this matter, peppering it with accusations of bias or worse, has been unhelpful. Do you really think that more than half a dozen CheckUsers and all of ArbCom are biased or going on bad evidence? Do you think that by our posting only that information that can be made public for you, you'll notice something we all missed, or uncover the evil conspiracy behind it all? Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• ::::I haven't seen "half a dozen CheckUsers" in this discussion, I've seen three (FT2 included), only two of whom (you and FT2) that have (I assume) seen the evidence. --Random832 (contribs) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep seeing "shared IPs" but also mention of open proxies and TOR proxies. Could one of the Checkusers clarify for us: were any of the shared IPs (for Poetlister specifically) not from an open or TOR proxy? --InkSplotch (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Common non-TOR IPs in 2005 and common TOR IPs in 2007 (which Runcorn had helpfully softened the blocks on). Thatcher 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Were there more tor IPs in common vs not than would be expected for two unrelated tor users? And hardblocking vs softblocking for tor nodes is something that many people have differences of opinion on - more so before the compromise solution of ipblock exempt was thought of - so unblocking/softening blocks on tor ips does not in itself mean Runcorn was personally using tor with sockpuppets. --Random832 (contribs) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As to your first question, I have never analyzed the matter with regard to other tor users, so I couldn't say. I note again that I have seen tor servers that, intentionally or inadvertently, passed on identifying information, and note that FT2 stated above that this was an ineffective attempt to use anonymizing proxies. Thatcher 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Of course there was more commonality than one would expect, since this is a major piece of the evidence. But it's not just commonalit; that's a simplistic way of looking at it. Different users do not share Tor nodes at the same time. However, edits from these accounts were overlapping on the same nodes (A edits for a period of time, then B, then A again, etc.), indicating that it was the same person simply switching accounts. For example, there was one IP where Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, and Londoneye edited from, in overlapping times; Taxwoman, Poetlister, and Brownlee shared another IP, Poetlister and Newport another; and so on, repeatedly, and to such a degree that mere chance is not likely at all. Recall, Poetlister's explanation for this was that her frail grandmother always used Tor on her computer, which Poetlister used sometimes too (some part of that claim must be false, since all of Poetlister's edits were from Tor).

They all shared the same rare (yes, rare) user agent. The accounts that slipped up and edited with Tor turned off some of the time had IPs that matched Runcorn conclusively, as well as overlapping, and matching therefore, with Poetlister. The same rare user agent was shared by Runcorn on non-Tor IPs as well as all the named socks, who was obviously supposed to appear unconnected to the rest, but for the slip-ups, as he never used Tor. The Runcorn account was used to unblock Tor nodes that were being used by the other accounts, both ones where Newport appears, and ones where Poetlister and Taxwoman, the supposedly different people, appear without the other socks. After all that, now factor in the behavioral evidence. This is not intended to be the definitive posting of all evidence, so that you can try to pick it apart, but rather, I am trying to show that there was a strong preponderance of evidence and that ArbCom made a thoughtful, informed decision based on that, which is quite different from a lot of the ill-informed accusations being thrown about. Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2 - point blank question; what would it take for you to be convinced that at least two of the accounts are separate people from each other? If there is nothing then the idea that they are all the same person is an unfalsifiable proposition and therefore should be ignored. --Random832 (contribs) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ooooh, can we run that pretty graph against ArbCom members and their voting patterns regarding ArbCom cases? What? You mean you discuss things off-Wiki and see if you can't "reach a consensus"? How very dare you... wait, some of them votes don't agree... oh, lookee, FT2 says "...Any competent sockmaster throws in a few contrary !votes." ZOMG!! Ban the ArbCom!!! Like I said, just a little white lie and there would never had been all this fuss. (Yeah, I know I also said I was bowing out... but then I aint running for ArbCom.)LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See, ladies and gentlemen? This is the perfect example of someone being given a second chance on Wikipedia. I fully endorse this unblock, and believe that this user should be welcomed back and become an accepted member of this community once more. :) Valtoras (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on Tor

Thatcher - How could a tor exit node leak identifying information even if it wanted to? Tor uses onion routing, so the only information it would have would be from the previous node in the chain. So, either it's a systemic problem (all nodes in a significant percentage of possible chains being compromised means a VAST majority of all nodes in the network are compromised) and therefore Tor is actually 100% worthless, or what you're seeing is actually the IP of another tor node, rather than of the actual user, or the information being "leaked" is actually a user agent (which unless it's a REALLY OBSCURE browser, doesn't prove nearly as much as you're implying it does) --Random832 (contribs) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And even if a node were compromised, how would it pass on the IP in a way that would allow checkuser to see it? The only information recorded in checkuser is user-agent and X-forwarded-for - Since Tor doesn't work at the HTTP connection level, user-agent would always be passed but proves little, X-forwarded-for would never be inserted. --Random832 (contribs) 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, my good fellow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS doesn't apply to calling someone out on exaggerating the level of "proof" they have. There is no way a "tor server" can leak IP addresses, period. --Random832 (contribs) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken on tor, certainly I have seen non-tor proxies that are "leaky." By the way, I went over the checkuser log, and this may interest you. At the time of the second block (May 2007), 5 different checkusers ran 108 separate checks, on 7 named users and 27 separate IP addresses. (The claim that only Newport and Runcorn were checked in 2007 is bunk, by the way.) Of those 27 IP addresses, 9 were proxies (6 tor and 3 other) and of those 9, Runcorn was involved in unblocking 6 of them, 2 were never blocked until after May 2007, and one had been previously softblocked by another admin. Thatcher 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I state again that it is misleading to characterize any soft-blocking or un-blocking as a one-man crusade by Runcorn as some people seem to want to think - there's been a lot of controversy on block type and duration for open proxies, up until very recently. --Random832 (contribs) 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a red herring. ArbCom has never said anything like "a one-man crusade," nor is that relevant. The pertinent evidence is that Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets. Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, following on from my comment above, I hadn't read the whole thread. I see that Random has been questioning a bit down here as well, so Dmcdevit, I apologise for my comment above. Still, the "unfalsifiable" bit above is a good point. We never want to get to a stage where accusations can't be disproven. The inherent unspoken fear is that one day any one of us could face such accusations that are difficult to disprove (it is not unknown for people to try and impersonate other users). There always needs to be a fallback option, whether it be a committed identity (can anyone provide a link to this) or another indisputable way for the people operating two accounts accused of sockpuppetry, with the accusations backed up by borderline checkuser data (and yes, the value of checkuser data can vary depending on the context) to prove that they are two different people, and to be advised on how to avoid meatpuppetry accusations even if they edit in the same areas (which any two people should be free to do if there is no conflict of interest or undeclared off-wiki interaction). It sometimes seems the best way to avoid such things is to never let anyone else edit through your IP, but this is not always practical. It seems it would be good advice for all editors to know whether they are editing from static IPs or not, and to note the times when they edited from other IPs, and to state if they are aware that other people are editing from their IP or IP range (while not having to reveal any more than this), just in case. I've occassionally edited from other IPs, and I also believe the main ones have slowly changed over time due to IP reassigment other than dynamic IPs stuff, but the stuff about IP ranges being "geographically close" always concerns me. It might help if the checkusers confirmed that they do discuss and check each other's actions on a regular and random basis, just to make sure individual checkusers don't slip into the habit of making errors. In particular, are new checkusers given training? Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly the reality is that difficult cases of WP:SOCK accusations/violations are almost impossible to disprove without the assistance of a time machine. e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar took almost 2 months. At the end of the day, admins, CU and arbcom need to make decisions based on what information they have. I am surprised that people are trying to find malice or incompetence in the CU and arbcom simply because a person who, previously banned from the community, has been welcomed back in by arbcom. Admins do this all the time; it doesnt mean that the admin is wrong or incompetent. Those observing these tough decisions need to AGF that the decision was made for the benefit of the project, at that time.

This is an extreme case, and all the people with access to the privileged information are saying that the evidence is insurmountable, with a round of blocks being the only sane way to deal with it at the time - but there is a fallback option even for extreme cases like this, and Poetlister has taken that route. She bit the bullet and decided to work productively on other projects to prove that she is worth a second chance. At the end of the day it doesnt really matter how she ended up so closely aligned with this sock ring. She has put things right by demonstrating that she is of a better ilk. I hope that any Wikipedians who find themselves in such a rare predicament follow her example when other avenues of appeal are exhausted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's _not_ a suitable fallback, because it does not allow Londoneye, if she is in fact a different person, to edit. It does not allow Taxwoman, if she is in fact a different person, to edit. It's only a "suitable fallback" if they really are all sockpuppets, which really isn't much of a fallback at all. --Random832 (contribs) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont follow - I have just explained how this fallback has worked successfully for one account. If those other accounts are also separate individuals, they can also join other projects, edit consistently for a long duration without using open proxies, or at least not use the same open proxy. Checkusers can then share information to confirm that they are all reasonably likely to be acting as separate individuals now. "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The pertinent evidence is that Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets. This is false. The evidence in question, rather, is that the accounts accused of being his sockpuppets used the Tor nodes unblocked and soft-blocked by him. "Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets" is actually your characterization (not an unreasonable characterization, to be sure, but all the same) of the evidence, rather than being the evidence itself. The context of the numerous disputes over how tor nodes should be blocked, settled only recently by the introduction of ipblock-exempt, serves to established that he might have had some other motive for unblocking them than his own alleged personal use of Tor. --Random832 (contribs) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how softblocking the OPs proves anything either way. Assuming for a moment that Poetlister isn't a sock of Runcorn, Runcorn and Poetlister were at the least Wiki-friends. I know this because back in 2006, I emailed Poetlister and Poetlister CCd Runcorn into the email discussion. It's entirely possible that Poetlister or one of the others complained to Runcorn that their op was blocked and he independently decided to abuse his tools and went and softened it for them. It's also possible that some of the language, user agent, the shared OPs and other similarities boil down to friendship. I mean, if I find a great new program, I tell my friends so they can try it, too. If I was using an OP and I had a friend who also wanted to use one, I would help them connect to mine. And friends often pick up each other's language. Same goes for the XfDs and RfAs - friends often discuss things like this off-site and it isn't out there to think they might have followed each other's edits. That said, I do believe that there were socks operating here and I believe that Runcorn was one of them, but I've never been overly convinced by the purported evidence linking Poetlister to the sock farm and I think it's very unfortunate she has had to wait this long for an unblock. But regardless of whether she was guilty or not, a second chance is a good thing and I thank the Arbitration Committee for taking this step. Sarah 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at individual pieces of evidence in isolation (and not even the really important ones, like direct IP matches) is deceptive. Runcorn might have unblocked the proxies as a friend, but it is not reasonable to suggest that he also shared exact, rare user agents, had an exact IP match with a sock, and began unblocking those proxies, etc., but was "just a friend." It's a bit nonsensical to begin making up a story for Poetlister that is directly contradicted by her own defense given in her appeal, which is considerably less convincing than the vague scenarios and possibilities being raised here — which seem more like attempts to defeat the evidence by outdebating it and planting a seed of uncertainty through all the same "what if"s that sockpuppeteers always give when they get caught; you could unblock nearly any sock if explanations could be that insubstantial. Dmcdevit·t 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm not trying to make up stories for Poetlister. I'm just expressing my own opinion that "Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets" is not, in my view, the strong "evidence" it's being presented as. It isn't even really evidence - the evidence is Runcorn unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes, and the rest of it is opinion with "sockpuppets" easily interchangeable with "friends". I do agree that the pieces of evidence combined are more convincing than they are individually. As I said before, I believe there was socking going on here but I'm just not overly convinced that Poetlister was part of the sock-farm. But I also haven't been overly convinced by the explanations Poetlister has given publicly and privately and I have felt when talking with her in the past that she wasn't being completely honest or upfront. Since I don't find either side all that compelling and nearly a year has passed with her continuing her good work on other projects without any problems, I'm glad she's been unblocked. Sarah 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad she is unblocked too. Aside from all of this other distraction, the real message here should be that it is a success story. It is irrelevant whether she admits a true account of what happened or not. Her subsequent actions show that she deserves a second-chance, and that means that we should let her back in with dignity intact. She is free to continue to claim innocence; as long as she proves a net benefit for the encyclopedia, it's a good thing. What I am really frustrated about is that other people won't let her back with dignity intact (not referring to Sarah, or only this thread). Insisting on arguing a year-old case again in a show of anti-authority politicking sows doubt and undermines ArbCom, which is why I felt compelled to reply and talk about it, but I don't think we should be dwelling on this instead of welcoming Poetlister back, guilty or not, and I'd rather the thread ended here. Dmcdevit·t 04:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for explaining your views of the technical aspects of the case. Cheers, Sarah 06:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing comments from Shalom

I wish to thank FT2 for providing a detailed explanation of his thought process and evidence. I feel strongly that, given the age of the accounts in question as of May 30, 2007, the Committee should have provided a public explanation at that time. I am certain that, although it would have increased the immediate drama, it would have saved a lot of time in the 11 months since then. I understand from FT2's closing words that he and the Committee have learned a valuable lesson to disclose evidence in complicated cases.

In my correspondence with the Committee to request Poetlister's unblock, I argued strongly that, even if Poetlister was guilty of everything she is accused of, she should be allowed back because almost a year has passed, and ArbCom generally issues bans of "only" a year. I thank the Committee for accepting this argument. I am deeply bothered by Seraphimblade's statement above that he would not have allowed Poetlister to return without some admission or explanation. If, after literally months of pressure and persuasion, you cannot push Poetlister to admit to any wrongdoing, the proper thing to do is step back from the conflict and ask yourself, "What is best for the Wikipedia community?" Surely nothing is gained by locking a supremely capable editor out of Wikipedia just because you cannot win an argument against her. Seraphimblade probably doesn't know this, but I promised Poetlister and the Committee that I would return to editing under my username only after they unblocked Poetlister. I kept my word. If Poetlister were still blocked, I would not be making this post right now. My conviction was that, no matter what happened last year and before, it is now time to make peace.

I asked the Committee to publish a finding that a "reasonable doubt" exists regarding the allegations against Runcorn/Poetlister. They declined for reasons I now understand. By stating in my userspace that Poetlister is innocent, I established that a reasonable doubt does exist, no matter how strong the checkuser and behavioral evidence may be. I continue to believe that Poetlister did not use sockpuppets. You may consider me delusional if you wish, but that is what I believe. I have the right to believe that. I also have the wisdom to know when to leave well enough alone.

What convinces me that these users are not all the same person is the "Offdays analysis" of which days they edited or did not edit. Assuming that all these users are the same person, the contribution log of that person is extremely bizarre. This person edited every single day from October 14, 2006, until he/she was blocked, and would almost certainly have continued to edit every single day for several more months. Maintaining this feverishly high level of activity for nine months or more, without taking any days off, is extremely difficult to do, especially if the person must juggle ten different identities simultaneously. Moreover, the number of offdays decreased as more accounts were created and actively edited. The sockmonster took ten consecutive days off between December 22, 2005 and January 2, 2006, which were Runcorn's first and second days of editing. The sockmonster took a total of ten days off in the 16 months from January 31, 2006 until it was blocked on May 30, 2007. No matter how much I ponder the vote-stacking and checkuser evidence, I just can't convince myself that the data are telling a coherent story. It doesn't make sense that one single person did this. There must be some other explanation. Some of the accounts must be different people, and I think Poetlister is one of those different people.

Let me answer Random832's question about falsifiability: how can Poetlister prove that she is not the sole operator of the Runcorn sock-farm? It's very simple. (I have suggested the following to her in a private email.) From public statements, we know her first name is Giselle [8] [9] (this is also how she signs her email messages). She says she was born on May 11, 1980.[10] [11] She uploaded photographs of herself in July 2005 (Image:Poetlister.JPG) and December 2007 (Image:Poetlister2.jpg). According to W.marsh in August 2007, she provided the Committee with other information to establish her real-world identity. W.marsh wrote: "a real name was given at one point, that connects to a very old webpage, that seems to provide the actual identity of whoever was behind all of this and tie the female accounts to each other... but Bulldog and I decided not to mention that name/page publicly for hopefully obvious reasons." [12] I don't know what he's talking about, but I assume the Committee knows the details.

Poetlister can convince the Committee that she is not the sole operator of the Runcorn sock-farm by providing a plausible alibi to show that her real-world identity did not have Internet access, and thus could not have edited Wikipedia, on any of the 513 days from April 11, 2005 to May 30, 2007 when any of the Runcorn socks edited but Poetlister did not edit. The Runcorn socks, taken as a group, edited on 723 of the 777 days in this interval, but Poetlister edited on only 213 of those days, including edits she made to Wikiquote, Wikisource and Meta. That leaves a window of 513 days for her to present an alibi to show that she was not editing Wikipedia on any of those days.

Experienced users who wish to receive a copy of my spreadsheet, where I have tabulated the relevant data, are invited to email me.

I am nearly certain that the Committee has not pursued this line of reasoning yet. It would not prove that Poetlister is completely innocent, but it would prove that she is not the sole operator of the Runcorn sock-farm.

I am not blind to the fact that, in addition to vote-stacking many XFDs and RFAs, the Runcorn sock-farm shared some common habits in their edit summaries, such as using "RV" (capitalized) to signal a revert, and repairing links of redirects to point to the target page with an edit summary of "Bypass redirect" or more rarely "Avoid redirect." Ultimately, I must concede that there is evidence on both sides of this argument, and I will never know the whole story. What I do know is that the "offdays analysis," among other evidence, strongly suggests that more than one person was involved. How many people? I don't know. But it was more than one.

FT2's explanation has restored my trust in the integrity of the Committee as an institution where justice prevails. Even though I disagree with his conclusion, I respect it, and I will limit my dissent to my userspace and to appropriate off-wiki web pages. I wish Poetlister success in reintegrating to the community. That, more than anything else, is the ultimate goal of our efforts on this case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Pisano

I seem to have stepped in a sock drawer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pisano (2nd nomination). It has gotten tetchy, but now deletion of comments including WP:SPA notices has taken place. Note history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Hayes and the associated DRV. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some advice or direction here. If I undo the deleted comments and warn the users, I'm escalating further, when I clearly should instead be disengaging. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll just sleep on it. The shenanigans of this crew deserve calling out, but doing so is just stirring a hornet's nest. If anyone has some advice on how not to do that next time, my e-mail works. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a nest that stirs easily. There are 4 accounts that are very obviously the same...I wouldn't take anything they say to heart, they don't argue very rationally...see your linked DRV when me saying that the article wasn't kept at AfD meant that I was insulting a Vietnam vet...and when I pointed out that they had invoked Godwin's Law...they argued the notability of Godwin's Law. Anywho...my opinion is that this calls for some sock blocks. --Smashville ^BONK! 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the same notion. This cadre is very quick to scream insult while freely levying their own, and they've repeatedly ignored any suggestion of the things they would need to do to save their article. The more vehement they get, the more they dig their own grave.  RGTraynor  15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the lack of response on ANI by uninvolved parties in the 12+ hours this has been up here, I made an SSP report. --Smashville ^BONK! 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I was overtired and frustrated and beginning to doubt my own judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When they tell you on your talk page that you are "clearly lying", you're usually not dealing with the rational ones. --Smashville ^BONK! 17:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• We had one admit that he knew the others here. I still think they are all one and the same, but I believe that's an admission of meatpuppetry. Can we please have a 3rd party look at all this? --Smashville ^BONK! 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• And they all work at the same university. --Smashville ^BONK! 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I've said on the AfD. It may be a good idea to do a courtesy blanking when it's over. This is a public place, more public than we sometimes realise, and a real career might be affected by someone's misguided actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary on the picture upload, I think he's friends with Sgt. bender. I'm sure if he requested it, we would... However, it's been over 36 hours and we still haven't had an admin check this out... --Smashville ^BONK! 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

After a Wikiquette alert found his behaviour to be at fault, an RFC was filed about this user here, relating to incivility and name calling. He refused to accept the findings of the alert and as yet has not replied to the RFC.

The problem is since then he has made some very serious claims about User:Jza84 "vote-rigging" here and here. These were found to be without evidence (as the vote was carried out long before he joined). The bad behaviour detailed in the RFC is continuing in his edits, which (in my opinion) are getting increasingly disruptive. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can we do? MRSC • Talk 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite several warnings,[13] [14] [15] MRSC has attempted to bully me around Wikipedia and has violated Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, amongs others only this morning, in his all consuming crusade against me, an obsesive crusade in which he is attempting to drag me away from peacefully editing articles.

• Examples of violation of WP:EDIT WAR can be found on Saddleworth White Rose Society, where he also violated WP:VER by removing material[16], which is sourced[17] [18] without discussing his controversial change on the talkpage first.
• Examples of violation of WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:TALK can be found here[19] on the talk page of the article Yorkshire, where violating the "comment on the content, not the editor" philosophy of WP:NPA. He disrupted Wikipedia in order to make a point, violating the purpose of WP:TALK which is to discuss the article and its content.
• Examples of continuous violations of WP:HARASS can be found in the fact that he, along with Jza keeps antagonising me in regards to my RFC both on my talk[20] [21] and in MRSC's case the harassment and disruption has spread to talk pages of articles.[22] [23] This despite the fact that MRSC has been made fully aware of the fact that I have 30 days to completely compile my countering evidence for the RFC (which he began only last night), which understandably takes some time and thus why the "Closing RFCs" timeline policy is in lane.[24] And the fact that this morning, I have discussed it with administrator KieferSkunk [25].

The way MRSC and friend address me on my talk page, is in a "can do no wrong" condoscending, and "holier than thou" manner, which is in itself offensive and a cause for friction. MRSC's almost trance like obsession with me, unwillingness to let old disagreements go, is exemplified in him following me around from article to article only this morning, when I was add information to them. It is an uncomfortable feeling, to the point of weirding me out that, every edit and move I make on Wikipedia is being watched over my shoulder by MRSC and friend, ready to jump on me at any moment in an act of harassment and Wikilawyering in an attempt to get legislation against me for the simple reason that the two disagree on some elements of content disputes. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can I do? - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please (both of you) go go here and follow the directions. This is not the place for this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I'll put it through the apropriate channel. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I had advised MRSC to bring a report here if the dispute continued to escalate despite a failed WP:WQA and no apparent response to the WP:RFC/U. After the RFC was filed, MRSC reported that Yorkshirian's behavior was continuing, and Yorkshirian himself said he did not plan to respond to the RFC in a timely manner - he would give the RFC a full 30 days to see if it was "a waste of [his] time", which seems also to be wasting everyone else's time. Additionally, such a statement makes it clear to me that dispute resolution is unlikely to resolve the dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk)—15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Venting) Okay, administrators. I am starting to get really tired of either reporting things here myself or referring other people here, PER OUR POLICIES, and having the issues completely ignored. This is no less than the sixth time this has happened, where a request for help has gone completely unanswered on this forum (and eventually auto-archived) or has been dismissed out of hand with no pointers to a more appropriate forum that hasn't already been used. Good editors are leaving the project because of disputes that need quick intervention by experienced admins.

Now, as regards this particular dispute: Several steps at WP:DR have already been tried, and according to the people who filed the initial WP:WQA complaint, Yorkshirian's behavior is continuing to disrupt the project. Yorkshirian also contends that the people filing the complaint are harassing him and disrupting the project. There has so far been no traction at RFC - Yorkshirian has stated that he intends to wait 30 days for a bot to archive the RFC before he considers responding to it, indicating that he feels it's a waste of time. In the meantime, according to MRSC and Jza, he is continuing to act with considerable derision toward his fellow editors, making some serious allegations of abuse against other editors in the process.

This situation is beyond anything I can currently help with, as it regards a regional dispute that I am not qualified to speak to. The issues of civility may not be blockable, but I believe they require more immediate attention than can be given via WP:RS - I do not wish to take action because of a perception that I am biased in the situation, so it would be very helpful to get at least one other admin to take a look at this.

If this is not the best place for another set of eyes, please direct me to the correct Noticeboard. I am already aware of WP:DR and its instructions, and I'm of the opinion that, given what's happened so far, DR is not likely to work.

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk)—22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this is still not getting any attention, I've advised the people involved that the people running ANI apparently are too busy and/or don't care to help. Thanks for helping us enforce our civility policies, folks. I really appreciate it. I hope we don't lose more good editors over this flap. — KieferSkunk (talk)—16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that no one cares, but nobody has found anything for an admin to do about this. The original advice, that you take this dispute to Dispute resolution, is the most helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi KieferSkunk, in my humble opinion, the user conduct dispute resolution process (apart from arbcom) isn't functioning at the moment. I'm of the opinion that part of the problem is lack of enthusiasm for the WP:RFC/USER process, which probably needs an overhaul, if not outright replacement. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile on your talk page I've also suggested looking into Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, which is an informal mediation process. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops I see the page has a backlog tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not mentioned here is this suspected sockpuppet report. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Brandt#Gaming_binding_DRV_decisions

Please review Talk:Brandt#Gaming_binding_DRV_decisions. There may be confusion by some parties about the previous set consensus and whether DRV is binding or not. Since the last Daniel Brandt DRV there have been attempts by editors to game and bypass the DRV, first at Redirects for Discussion, and now on Talk:Brandt. More administrative eyes are needed, please, on this hot-button BLP issue that has has negatively affected both Wikipedia, BLP subjects, and administrators here who have been harassed in real life into leaving Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute essentially unrelated to the DRV, with little relevancy to ANI but more eyes on it couldn't hurt. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is much worse, as the Daniel Brandt text was removed in August 2007 and stayed out until Newyorkbrad's sudden retirement, when it was re-added and various users have edit-warred since then to keep it in. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is trying to use this debate to get revenge, it would be strongly ill-advised. Brad has indicated his retirement was not due to specific issues, and to act otherwise would be plain wrong. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely; I encourage every passing admin to watchlist Brandt. This matter will be settled by precedent, DRV, and consensus alone, not any fealty to Brandt's war or in opposition to it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In that Lawrence I suggest you stop making comments about how if we do this Brandt will harass more people. Let's discuss this on the talk page like rational adults. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I have been doing on the Brandt talk page; you're the one who keeps bringing up harassment now. I simply pointed out that Brandt had NO reference to Daniel Brandt from August 2007 until it was magically re-added--why?--right when Newyorkbrad retired, on April 30 this year. Was that just a pure coincidence? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify this edit then? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I quote myself from directly above: "you're the one who keeps bringing up harassment now"

Your bias (sockpuppetting to affect Brandt deletion issues, losing your adminship over it, etc.) is known, and you have no business being involved on this topic matter, hence my unpleasant reaction to seeing you continue to harass a BLP subject. Since that edit, I've argued 101% based on policy and consensus, and you keep bringing up that we shouldn't appeal to Bradnt in this matter. He was removed from Brandt in August 2007. What was such a pressing notability change that he coincidentally just had to be re-added immediately after what happened to Newyorkbrad in April 2008? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence. Develop a mind that can make new arguments please. We've been over the sockpuppeting accusations before and a variety of prominent editors who have looked at the evidence for that agree concluded that I hadn't sockpuppeted. Thank you however for bringing up an accusation which has no bearing on content. I could be Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson and it wouldn't alter what the best content would be here at all. So ignoring your ad hominem attacks are you saying that you did in fact made arguments that we shouldn't keep this based on threats from Brandt and then lied about it directly above? Because that's certainly what it looks like. As to "pressing notability change"- I already explained that there didn't need to be one and that I didn't see one- that events cause people to pay more attention to pages isn't a new thing and since I didn't start this discussion you'll have to talk to Kendrick and the others about the underlying logic. Indeed, I came in you'll notice trying to propose a compromise which you still haven't explained your objection to. I'd appreciate if you could kindly do so in a form that didn't involve "oh no! Brandt will harass us!" or "JoshuaZ supported a compromise position! And he's evil!". In the meantime I suggest we restrict this to the relevant talk page and stop cluttering ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"In response to a finding by the Arbitration Committee that he engaged in abusive use of multiple user accounts, JoshuaZ voluntarily resigned his administrator tools on February 5, 2008." -- please, do mistruths. You did this on Brandt-related matters. If this RFAR is incorrect, please edit that closed RFAR page. I explained my objection very clearly on the talk page, but you have not addressed any objections there. In fact, we have yourself, and two other editors warring across multiple articles to reactivate Daniel Brandt links in the wake of late April 2008. Why? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that things got heated enough to result in protection for the Brandt DAB page. More eyes are probably a good idea, as Lawrence requests. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note also that the same weirdness and hell-bent determination to add Mr Brandt to Wikipedia is also happening on Public Information Research [26], Google Watch [27] and NameBase [28] - all related articles. This petty vendetta against Brandt needs to stop and folks need to move on. Wikipedia is not a tool for vengeance. I'm no fan of Brandt myself, having been Hiveminded before with bad consequences, but this is just wrong - Alison ^❤ 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all over the place, even on other DAB pages, see here. Perhaps we should revisit the idea of topic bans for obsessive editors as I had previously proposed for JoshuaZ. Some editors go so far as to outright lie like here, claiming Daniel Brandt was never deleted by AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If this continues, there will be blocks for disruption. MBisanz ^talk 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(This is, I recognize, not wholly on topic, but it is a point worth restating, persistently missed, as it happens to be, by those who claim that any further discussion of the issue is properly for(e)stalled upon by common sense and is necessarily disruptive.) By "lying", you mean stating correctly that AfD never sanctioned the red-linking (deleting fully, that is, in contrast with redirecting and protecting) of Daniel Brandt? Whatever may be the continued dispute over under what standard of review we ought to evaluate the most recent deletion of the redirect, over what our presumption should be with respect to summary deletions in situations like this, and over whether we ought simply to drop this issue and adjudge any further efforts to revive it, whether at Brandt or elsewhere, as disruptive, no one seriously contends that the deletion of the redirect followed in any way from the most recent AfD (even if subsequent discussions have borne out a consensus for that deletion — as, IMHO, they surely haven't, and almost certainly won't — or if deletion was appropriate on other grounds even as it might have been inconsistent with, or at least surely not compelled by, the AfD), which is, after all, why so many are irked by the suggestion that those who are unwilling to let everything rest in its present form act with either malign motive or total indifference to common sense (in the latter case, essentially that they are editing disruptively, irrespective of their intentions) and would prefer that some clarity, if not finality, be brought to the issue by a proper community discussion (one that recognizes, of course, that the community counseled the preservation of the redirect at the most recent AfD and therefore that, erroneous constructions of BLP and the Bdj RfAr as having reversed, for BLPs or BLP-related pages [as the Daniel Brandt redirect or DB's being listed at Brandt], our practice of defaulting to "keep" in those XfD discussions that do not produce a consensus for deletion notwithstanding, that the failure to reach a consensus about the redirect [and, one supposes, about the listing on the dab page] should result in its restoration). Joe 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy wonkery and over analysis based on 1,001 interpretations will be the death of us all, and it's a waste of time. DRV #5 was a massive outpouring of consensus in a variety of ways, and the most linear, up and down discussion I've seen in my time of the Brandt Problem. Does he stay, or does he go? The consensus, unchallenged as no one has DRV'd the DRV, is that he go. Policy is worth the value of the paper our money is printed on: nothing. The ideas behind the policy, and the authority that money carries gives it power. We voiced what we wanted at DRV #5, Prodego weighed it, and it's stood. Is this never going to be accepted until someone remakes the article, theres ANOTHER AFD, a clear Delete emerges, and THEN another DRV endorses the Delete close of the AFD? Is it going to only be valid if we do it in proper goose-stepping 1-2-3 order? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it comes to a point where common sense has to kick in somewhere, and it did with the removal of the article. If this was any other BLP subject that didn't meet our various article criteria, we wouldn't even be here. "Is teh enemy" doesn't really provide a sound (or mature) basis for exceptionalism. Orderinchaos 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear Hear! This is asinine. It's clearly become a matter of personal feelings for some editors, who can't accept that there really is no good reason to report on him, beyond not liking a guy whose name is found on the net a couple times. Bet they couldn't find half a dozen notable print references for the guy, they hadn't last time i read that article pre-delete. It's antagonism for fun for a select few editors and dmins, and it needs to stop. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you want to assume then you're being blind to most of the discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've been reading this ongoing saga for a couple years now. It's clear that there aren't sources, that Consensus has been found ad nauseum, and that some editors insist that any deletion is actually a deletion to assuage Brandt, and thus resist it. There hasn't been a real 'keep/restore' argument of merit in a long long time. ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What's process wankery is insisting that those DRVs meant anything, considering we only had them because we had admins abuse their tools and blatantly violate the previous community consensus on the issue. And am I the only one who doesn't blame Brandt for NYB's leaving? Brandt might be a troll/"bad man"/whatever, but I don't think even he wanted that to happen. It surprised us all how sensitive NYB was about that info. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Brandt's goal has always been to destroy this project, he's been clear about that. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it was an outcome that didn't help Brandt, so I doubt he wanted it to play out that way. As much as I'd like to, I can't blame him for NYB leaving. What he did was still wrong, just for other reasons. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So you admit he did wrong, but can't blame him for doing wrong. Which makes it 'right'... but you say it was 'wrong'. And Brandt's been pretty open about his goal of shutting down the project, so I think you should go track down his comments. ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone slapped me I wouldn't act as if he shot me with a gun. My point is that Brandt wanted NYB to enforce his view of how to deal with BLPs. Instead NYB left completely, which doesn't help Brandt out in that respect. Brandt isn't so stupid to think that he could actually out every single Wikipedian editor one by one till there's no one left. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said he had a one at a time agenda; but his goal is to destroy this project. It wouldn't take EVERY user. All he has to do is continuously focus on the Admins, Arbcommers, and the top end till they all walk off, and the risk to one's personal life and safety is widely known enough that no one will step willingly into the positions. Cauterize enough heads, and the Hydra dies. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As a two cents, I don't think dabbing Daniel would be suitable on the disambiguation page - there's no page to link to, and the PIR redirect was strongly discouraged at DRV #5. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the redirect remains protected (thankfully) and it appears various editors were warned that further disruption would lead to blocks... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption is not the same as disagreement. You seem to have trouble understanding that, Lawrence. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry, edit warring, religious categories and BLP

Resolved

 – Blocked disruptive sock on CU evidence from Lar. Reviewed all articles named and trimmed unverifiable categories. --John (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Previously some of this was discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive41, yet continues largely unabated so bringing here for wider attention and hopefully some action. For some considerable time FaithChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who also edits using a substantial number of IP sockpuppets) has consistently flouted the biographies of living people. From that policy:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

This is completely ignored on a wide variety of articles, in particular footballers. Haven't got the time or energy to make up a complete list, but these should give you an idea of the scale of it, although there's plenty more in addition to these if you check the contribs of the IPs listed.

• Abou Diaby‎
• Alex Curran
• Andrew Neil‎
• Andy Griffin‎
• Andy O'Brien (footballer)
• Anne Diamond‎
• Anthony Quinlan‎
• Armand Traoré‎
• Bacary Sagna
• Brahim Hemdani‎
• Brian Conley
• Cat Deeley
• Coleen McLoughlin‎
• Coleen Nolan
• David Connolly
• David Kelly (footballer)
• David Morrissey

• David Nugent
• Declan Donnelly
• Des Kelly‎
• Eduardo da Silva‎
• Éric Abidal‎
• Erin O'Connor
• Gary Breen
• Gary O'Neil‎
• Habib Mohamed
• Hamza Mohammed‎
• Hatem Ben Arfa‎
• Karim Benzema
• Kelvin MacKenzie
• Kevin Foley (footballer)
• Khalid Boulahrouz‎
• James McEveley
• Jamie Carragher

• Joe Pasquale
• John Welsh (footballer)
• Jon Macken
• Lassana Diarra
• Lewis Hamilton
• Lisa Butcher
• Martin Keown
• Matthew Wright
• Mohamed Sissoko‎
• Natalie Cassidy‎
• Neil Morrissey
• Nick Park
• Paddy Kenny‎
• Paolo Vernazza‎
• Patrick McGuinness
• Patsy Palmer
• Paul McKenna (footballer)‎

• Paul O'Grady
• Peter Kilfoyle
• Phil Redmond‎
• Robert Earnshaw‎
• Rob McCaffrey
• Rupert Everett
• Sharon Maughan
• Steve McMahon
• Steve McManaman
• Sulley Muntari
• Terry McDermott
• Tess Daly
• Tom O'Connor
• Wayne Hennessey‎
• Wayne Rooney
• Yahaya Mohamed
• Younes Kaboul‎

Across these and more, it's a seemingly never ending edit war by the editor anon IPs, reverting anyone who reverts his edits. Main account and IPs listed below:

• FaithChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.64.208.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.64.212.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.129.224.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.158.83.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.158.84.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.158.84.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.158.84.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.158.85.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.66.204.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.40.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.41.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.41.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.41.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.42.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.225.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.226.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.228.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.229.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.230.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.235.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.236.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.237.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.237.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.237.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.238.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.238.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.128.239.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.155.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.136.157.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.143.95.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.144.16.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.154.220.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.164.147.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.164.148.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.168.50.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.168.51.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.42.5.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.42.5.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.42.5.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.42.6.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.42.6.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This editor is well aware the cats are BLP violations, yet keeps adding them anyway, and edit warring to retain them. BLP violations, edit warring, sockpuppetry, yadda, yadda, yadda, they have seemingly no intention of complying with policy whatsoever. What's to be done about it - over to you as I'm heading off into the sunset again till my next sockpuppetry report...... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filing such a comprehensive report. I saw it and thought I would let someone who doesn't know you deal with it. As that hasn't happened, I'll be happy to take it on. I agree that this person is editing against our goals and I will warn them. I'll post any block that may become necessary here for review. I suggest a checkuser on the IPs; I can file that for you if you like. --John (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer; I've been involved in cleaning up some of the related ethnic categories in the last weeks. Some of them are in an awful mess. See also here, here and here; it is maybe also worth flagging up to a wider audience the awfulness of some of these categories. In one recent run I removed over 500 instances of an ethnic category. I'd say 90% did not even assert in the body of the article that the person was of this ethnicity, and the other 10% it was an unreferenced assertion. Ethnicity and religion need to be referenced, especially on articles about living people, and removed if challenged and unreferenced, and categories are not exempt from this. Given my recent involvement in this area, it might therefore be better if an uninvolved admin did any block necessary. --John (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good John, these kind of categories should indeed be removed boldly and coldly, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the list, to be honest I'd get rid these categories altogether, they cause nothing but trouble. Ban Ray 08:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, at John's request I did some digging with Checkuser. Although I did not exhaustively check every IP reported, all the ones I checked pretty strongly correlate to the user. I think blocking IPs whose sole or main contribution is reverting justified category removals (and it's justified to remove a category that is not sourced and is not relevant to the BLP's career or history) for a week or two seems prudent to me and I'd say the bad hand FaithChecker account needs blocking as well. That user can edit with their good hand account if they like, which I will not publicly name at this time. When I have more time I will carry out a more extensive investigation.++Lar: t/c 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lar. I've indefinitely blocked the bad hand account following your advice. --John (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now reviewed all the articles named above and trimmed out any unverifiable categories. I now regard the situation as resolved. Thanks again for making such a comprehensive report. --John (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:One Night In Hackney

I believe that the following title of a new talk page section breeches the civility rules. Before the usual suspects open their racist mouths I do not particulally care that this user claims to have retired these kinds of accusation should not and cannot be tolerated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. Does that make me dumb? Bearian (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The language used is inflammatory and contains a serious accusation in the title. These kinds of accusations cannot be made without significant evidence and here the accusation only appears to be inflammatory.--Lucy-marie (talk)

(ec) Yes, it's a bit astray of assuming good faith and I wouldn't put it that way, but this established user has been using very strong means of expression lately and I don't see it as being all that disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This may not appear to be disrutpive,but if the user uses strong means of expresing themself which are inflamaory and directed towards other users, then that is disruptive as it removes any form of constructive communication and the user is not assuming good faith.

I wouls also like to add that the user has added inflammatory pictures their user page with the edit summary "Hello to all the stalkers with this watchlisted". The user has IMO been allowed to get away with their 'strong expressions' for too long and now IMO appears to believe they have carte blanche to be as inflammatory as they like.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a user page. Not my way of doing things but I don't see any personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an indirect attack on the people with the page watchlisted and the people the user thinks are 'racist'. No user should be allowed to espouse these kinds of comments anywhere on Wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What user does ONiH say is racist? I see you've had disputes with this editor in the past. Are you being fair about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am being fair about this, I have bought to the attention of the community a user who is making accusations of racism. The users which are being claimed to be racist are users who have a different political POV to the user. I was branded a racist once by the user over the removal of calling a political party faschist. These wild and unfounded claims by any user anywhere should not be allowed. If any other user had made the same kinds of statemens I would have acted in an identical fashion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, ONiH isn't calling you a racist or a stalker on those user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel so trongly you should refactor the comments on the talk page. That would be better than posting here, which would have been more appropriate when, as you say, he called you a rascist int eh past. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The user deletes any comments I post on their talk page and refuses to communicate with me. This one of the few ways to express concern regarding this user, as the user reuses to communicate with me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ONiH doesn't have to talk to you. I'd let it go. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you, simply take the page off your watch list. I wouldn't do things the way ONiH does, but I don't see any actual harm in what he is doing. --John (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the editor concerned is going through a process of wiki-angst and am tempted to let them work thru' it. I'd unwatch the page and ignore it. There are no personally directed attacks and what I get is a strong sense of irony and self deprecation. If it goes too far, there are plenty of admins who will provide advice/blocking. Can you identify the users who possess a different POV to OneNightIn? ... (I won't say Hackney, since some of us have to spend all our nights there). Kbthompson (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say you are the last person who I would have thought ONIH was referring to Lucy-marie; I assumed it was to the aristocratic sympathisers of David Lauder but I could be wrong. If he does attack you personally that would be the time to take action. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen Gale that the user violated AGF, but it's his user page, and he has some more flexibility there. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not happy that ONiH has decided to undo my refactoring, I think it should be noted that A) This report by Lucy-Marie is motivated by past BLP scuffles between the two (I thought, and am pretty sure that consensus was that ONiH was in the right in that scuffle), and B) this has to do with another BLP issue above, regarding a wide range of BLP issues and POV material. (see the section above) SirFozzie (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow my lead Lucy; simply ignore ONIH & his personal page. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nicolaas Smith - archive and talkpage vandalism

See the following edits:

archive removal talk page deletion more talk page deletion

Mr. Smith has been blocked under various names in the past for sockpuppetry under the name User:Herbou and related, long record of personal attacks, etc. Single-issue editor as well attested by this comment on my talk page: "You and no-one else can stop or remove Real Value Accounting from the economic scene. Real Value Accounting will prevail. It will one day be contributed here on Wikipedia by some-one other than me. I know and every-one here knows that you will fight them off as much as you can. But, in the end Real Value Accounting will appear on Wikipedia. 704 people have already downloaded the book on their own free will. I am not ashamed that I developed Real Value Accounting by chance as a result of my experience with hyperinflation. I am not ashamed that I identified that inflation has a monetary and non-monetary component. I am not ashamed that I identified that the stable measuring unit assumption destroys real value on a massive scale world wide. I am not ashamed to be who I am and to sign my real name to what I write here."

In short, a very long history of pushing - despite repeated reminders about conflict of interest and other matters - Real Value Accounting at the expense of all else, and little willingness to pay attention to any wikipedia community rules, guidelines, etc.

Note that Mr. Smith also frequently states that he is leaving wikipedia, asks to have his usernames deleted, only to return and begin again. A long history of similar behaviour when not logged in from a series of easily-identifiable IP addresses.

Grateful some other editors look into this, as I'm tired of the attacks on me.--Gregalton (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton congratulated me, on 18 March 2008, on Wikipedia for being published here: [29]

Here it is: "........the situation has evidently changed now that your work has actually been published - congratulations................ "--Gregalton (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears in the current Inflation talk page under the Plain English section. [30]

Real Value Accounting is thus not original research any more but facts published and verified in a peer reviewed leading accountancy journal in September 2007 [31] When you click on [Download Issue] you see the date. Despite knowing this for a long time (since 8 March 2008) Gregalton stated on his talk page on 6 May 2008: "I have stated that Wikipedia may not be the appropriate venue for you to promote your research, and that the way you have done so has not been constructive. It would help to acquaint yourself better with WP policies."--Gregalton (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [32]

This was my reply to him: " Research: diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications: Dictionary.com.

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Dictionary.com

Peer reviewed publication in leading accountancy journal: [3]

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "The combination of the Historical Cost Accounting model and low inflation is thus indirectly responsible for the destruction of the real value of Retained Income equal to the annual average value of Retained Income times the average annual rate of inflation."

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "Everybody suddenly then agrees to destroy hundreds of billions of Dollars in real value in all companies´ Retained Income balances all around the world."

Obviously of little importance to you.

Obviously of great importance for you are the following; why, I do not know and I do not care. Just sad, really. Especially when this is done on Wikipedia:

Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive" : Dictionary.com.

My work is not research any more. What I state are facts as verified by the peer reviewed article. Please, do not lie about my work, that is, make a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive.

No incivility intended towards you. I am only quoting and stating facts.

You are very uncivil to me. As I have stated repeatedly in the past: Gregalton, I am sick and tired of your insults here on Wikipedia.

Obviously, you do not get banned for continuously insulting a good faith editor."

I state again: Gregalton made the false statement that my work is research with the deliberate intent to deceive. The deliberate intent to deceive is proven by the fact that Gregalton leaves out the word "original" in his statement that my work is research. That clearly demonstrates the deliberate intent to deceive. He knows it is not original research. So he thinks he can get away with his false statement by saying simply my work is "research".

He knows people will take it to mean "original research" in terms of Wikipedia policy. That is exactly what happened. See his talk page: "This sounds like an open and shut case of WP:OR. ......... Skyemoor (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and

"If Mr. Smith's 'research' becomes published in a notable economic journal, then perhaps this can be re-examined at that time. Until then, WP:OR is quite clear. Thanks again Greg for holding the line on appropriate content. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)"

The deception worked perfectly:[33]

I know you will not accept my explanation. You cannot accept my explanation. How can you accept that Gregalton deliberately made a false statement about my work with the deliberate intent to deceive - even though my work has been published in a peer reviewed leading accountancy journal? You have to protect your Wikipedia editors to the detriment of good faith editors.

You will also ignore the fact that when work is published in a peer reviewed leading accountancy journal it is not original research any more. You have to - to protect Gregalton: to prove that he had no deliberate intent to deceive Wikipedia users about the fact that my work is not original research anymore.

You will just brush aside the fact that he lied about my work. You have to do it that way. You will also not see that as an insult to me and what my work is about. An insult to the fact that my work is about preventing situations like the destruction of a whole economy like Zimbabwe´s by the application of the stable measuring unit assumption. The fact that what I proved as a fact in my work, not original research trying to discover something, is about the prevention of the destruction of hunderds of Billions of Euros each and every year in the world economy by the application of the stable measuring unit assumption will also be regarded as of little concern to you.

So, go ahead. Ban me and my work from Wikipedia. Approve Gregalton´s lie and his deception of Wikipedia users.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently free downloads of the book stands at 710 [34]

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comments & contributions of Mr Nicolaas Smith, I find it undeniable that this is a Single Purpose Account engaged in Tendentious Editting -- as well as undeniable incivility. In plain English, Mr Nicolaas Smith is the sort of problem user who drives good ones away from Wikipedia. He could be blocked for a limited time -- or indefinitely -- for any of these reasons. However, in several places, besides the response above, he has asked to be banned & although I cannot ban other users I can put an indefinite block on their account -- so I have at his request. In the future, take more care about what you ask for. Notice left on his Talk page with an explanation of how to appeal. Review invited. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A block for disruption is likely called for but this is not the way. As you said, you can't ban anyone and you can't block someone because they've requested it (even if it's your good faith interpretation of what the user wants). My take is that this block should be immediately lifted. One reason for this policy is the user could later ask to be unblocked and this would put things back where they are now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about the policy, but let me respond with this. The point of all of our policy, guidelines & rules is make collaborative editing a positive experience. After examining all of his contributions, would you want to collaborate with him on an article? If you would, then I invite you to unblock him & take him under mentorship, because he's going to need a lot of help. As for me, I'd rather spend eight hours with a salesman motivated to sell me a vacation timeshare in Des Moines than work with this person.

I've been part of Wikipedia for quite a few years, & I've not only seen a lot of would-be editors like him, but have interacted with a few: I can assure you that Mr Nicolaas Smith is not about to change his ways. He's here for only one reason -- to push his version of the truth into Wikipedia. Anyone who he encounters while he is doing this -- no matter whether they are trying to stop him, or simply help him be more effective -- are spewed with his sarcastic venom. This will cause many of them to quit Wikipedia. And besides, although it may seem glib, blocking him because he asked for it, not because he is disruptive, keeps him from claiming he was made a martyr for his beliefs. If he claims that, we can simply point to the fact that he repeatedly threatened to leave, & he was helped to do this. And it puts an interesting consideration when he argues that his account should be unblocked -- if nothing else, he would need to explain why he has changed his mind, & perhaps explain how he will change his behavior if he is allowed back in. -- llywrch (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I agree with the outcome and do understand what led you to handle it this way. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Donnylong

There appears to be something going on here. User:Donnylong has been changing the page Donny Long, making edits such as this one, which appear to be a veiled personal attack of sorts. I'm not sure what's going on here, though, and I was warned about reverting the subjects of BLP articles when citing a BLP concern, but I don't think this appears to be the case. —   scetoaux (T|C) 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a weird one all right, but WP:BLP does not allow subjects of an article to use their articles for soapboxing or personal attacks (for that matter, slander or libel against a living person in their own article is actually a violation of WP:BLP). The username is technically blockable per WP:UN, but some of their edits--such as this one--appear to be consistent with actions that would reasonably be taken by the subject. Rather than block, then, I'm going to leave a note on their talk page asking them to confirm their identity and advising them that they need to refrain from personal attacks. --jonny-m t 02:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that a legal threat I saw (before the page was blanked?) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was part of my rationale to blank the page. There didn't seem to be anything in the history of the page that I could have reverted to in order to end the current edit war and start the talking. Please inform me if I have acted inappropriately. —   scetoaux (T|C) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be that you could have found a good version somewhere in the History (or you could have edited the page yourself) but there's no guarantee that either action would have stopped the edit war. Better safe than sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit summarises the portion that set off the edit war. Vinh1313 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think This edit is a better representation, since at that point I had re-written it to better conform to Wikipedia standards, and specifically removed an objectionable reference. It also illustrates the lengths subject will go to in order to pursue his vendetta against Christian XXX. At the end of the day, Donny Long seeks to have any truthful reference to his statements removed. James W. Ballantine (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left another note on User talk:Donnylong and sent an e-mail asking for a follow up so we can sort out these issues. Although there's no rush to resolve this, hopefully this will help nudge things forward at the very least. --jonny-mt 04:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

JPG-GR (talk · contribs) is trying to "close" in an administrative style a request to move of a page which I had issued.

After User:Ludvikus had recently moved the article to a new title, I had issued a first request at 29 April 2008. It was accepted almost at the same day, and the article was moved back by an administrator to the old title. Now Ludvikus had the idea to move the article to a new, third title. That is why I filed a second request at 30 April 2008 to move the article back to the old title. I've explained on the article's talk page why this is the correct title. Only Ludvikus seems to oppose a move. However, now User:JPG-GR is removing my request from the WP:RM, (and at the same time the { {move-templates}} form the article's talk): [35] [36] [37]

JPG-GR explains to me that the case is closed, see their and my talk-page, although they are not an administrator. This behaviour of JPG-GR is disturbing. --Schwalker (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Five days have passed and there is no consensus for the move. User:Schwalker is merely taking out his/her frustration on me because he/she has found no support for his/her proposed move. JPG-GR (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is no consensus" and if there is no consensus, then it must be achieved" JPG-GR (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already found support by the editor who had moved the article back to its old title one week ago. The only editor who is opposing this consensus seems to be Ludvikus. Anyhow, WP:RM reads:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared..

So the next step after a request has reached the backlog would be that an administrator is looking at the case. --Schwalker (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've just been informed of this discussion here. I think it's about the battle of the t/T's - t vs. T, correct? All I can say at the moment is that I'm for the Big T. As to consesus, I'll report back on that in a moment, or soon. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm back. Both of you are wrong: in fact, the consensus was there, namely that Capital "T" is correct, and that the Article not be moved from where it is now. Here's my evidence for that Ludvikus (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC):

1. (cur) (last) 21:22, 30 April 2008 Schwalker (Talk | contribs) m (24,107 bytes) (→Publications by Marx related to the essay) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 20:30, 30 April 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (24,104 bytes) (→Interpretations: clarify source author's voice) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 16:31, 30 April 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (moved On the Jewish Question to On The Jewish Question over redirect: rv myself) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 16:29, 30 April 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (moved On The Jewish Question to On the Jewish Question over redirect: correct capitalization) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 14:47, 30 April 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (24,021 bytes) (move minor info to proper section) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 14:45, 30 April 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (23,977 bytes) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 13:49, 30 April 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) m (moved On the Jewish Question to On The Jewish Question: Formally the "T" is capitalized) (undo)

Consensus is reached through discussion, not through an overview of a move war. This is why I asked Schwalker (talk · contribs) to create a new, proper request so that there would be a more centralized area for future discussion to see if consensus could be found. He refused to do so, declared there was no consensus on my own talk page, and then reported it here. *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. My understanding is that the only editor who objects/objected to "T" instead of "t" is Schwalker (talk · contribs). I have no knowledge of any other who supported/supports his view. So my understand of the concensus was/is Keep "T". --Ludvikus (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I'm sure that you act in good faith and are not aware of how much time of other people you bind by your disturbing actions concerning this article. Nearly each of your suggestions for this article so far had to be reverted by others. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to show our attention to you. So if you are not able to contribute in a constructive way, please try to work on something else. I believe that not more Wikipedians participate in the discussion about the title with a capital 'T', because they think this question is entirely silly. Another user has already once moved the article back to the old title at 13:08, 29 April 2008.

JPG-GR, well, I've never moved the article so far, do you really think that it is necessary to remind me not to "move-war"? Instead, I've issued two proper request to move, the second request at 21:35, 30 April 2008. The discussion takes place at Talk:A_World_Without_Jews#Lower case 't', everyone interested is invited to participate in the discussion to reach a consensus.

However, the problem is that you interfer and try to close my process, and remove my request from WP:RM, and remove my "move"-templates on the articles talk-page in an edit-war, and archive the discussion on the article's talk-page, to the effect that the process will not continue: no administrator will look at it, and move the article back to what most editors think is the correct title. Greetings to both of you, --Schwalker (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Reappraisal

Resolved

Please provide input about do-undo edits between User:Orangemarlin and me [38] since 7 May 2:08 to 7 May 8:38 Randroide (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary of yours was not helpful. You might want to read up on what is called vandalism on Wikipedia (and what isn't). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First, thank you for taking this issue up here and not mindlessly reverting. Secondly, your edit summary here was rather uncivil. He removed a link that he says is not a reliable source; these links should not be included in refs, but looking at it, it is a New York Observer link, and these are reliable in my opinion. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 09:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The source looks ok but a bit too narrow for the sweeping statement it's meant to support. Also, the reference isn't in an accepted format, obscuring the name of the source and the article, but showing a quotation from it. Taken altogether, this will not help convince Orangemarlin the source is reliable and supports the assertion. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Could you please be more specific about the removal of the external links?.Randroide (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The links Orangemarlin rm'd do look unreliable to me. One is a collection of videos, the other two both look bloggy (and one looks new and rather incomplete). You might want to have a look at the external links policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Those links are produced by the very same groups the article is about. It is like the canonical example about the perfect validity of linking sormfront.com at Stormfront (website).Randroide (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So it really depends on how they are used. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That´s the point. Triying to use those sources to source anything at AIDS would be totally improper. But AIDS denialism is the exact page to link those websites, just as in the stormfront example. Randroide (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about the groups, it's about the general topic, so your example doesn't hold true. Meanwhile, calling good faith edits vandalism, not being familiar with Wikipedia policies on citation formats and external links, along with using Stormfront in a (mistaken) reasoning as to why external links might be included in the article, will not get you very far. I suggest you try editing some uncontroversial articles and approach this again after you've gotten some experience as an editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I apologized for my breach of civility [39]. 2. I have "some" (+8000 edits, +40 articles created) experience as an editor (vid. my user page). 3. I can not understand the rationale for deleting external links created by the very same groups the article is about. Anyway, administrators have the last word about what´s right and wrong here, at Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback, sir. Randroide (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that for the last few weeks, you had mostly edited only this article (along with what look like related user pages). With 8000 edits stretching back to 2006 I think it would be very helpful to you if you'd read up a bit more on things like article sourcing, external links and dispute resolution. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About me reading a bit more about dispute resolution: Excuse me, but after two years It´s the first time I come at this venue with this kind of grievances. I was impelled to do so by the summary of this edit Any further accusations of my being a vandal will be taken up on an ANI Randroide (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

I was trying to help you see how you might generally be able to make stronger, longer lasting edits. Orangemarlin's edits were not vandalistic and I still don't understand how his assertion that they weren't could have made you think you had to bring this here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin´s reference to the AIN made me bring the issue here, sir. Thank you for your well intentioned recommendations to me. This incident has taught several things to me Randroide (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at it this way. Stormfront can link to stormfront.org. In general, article X can link to X.org. But there is no aidsdenialism.org; there are many groups with no official central organisation. Wikipedia is not a link directory - we do not and should not link to every group A, B, C, etc that says it is interested in X. Of course, if one of those groups B is notable enough to have its own article, that article can link to B.org. Does that help at all? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, indeed. I disagree with your POV on this issue, but you help me to understand that my own POV is not the consensus, and that settles the issue here, at Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and attention. Randroide (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's not my POV. That's my interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines on external links. My POV is that AIDS denialists are fostering ignorance and superstition over education and prevention, and contributing to millions of preventable deaths. I try to keep it well away from the article contents. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Longhair (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – WP:RBI. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Longhair (talk · contribs) has abused his admin privileges by deleting my user page. He had no right to do so, and claimed it was because my user page was "Blatant Advertising", which is utter nonsense. I can only assume he has something to hide, namely that he was responsible for the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Missing 4 Year Old (talk)

Suspected troll account. -- Longhair\^talk 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, pretty clear troll account. One more edit of that type and I'll indefinitely block myself. WP:BLP is not a joke. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious enough. The last sentence is a give away. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by East718. End of story. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very clear troll account...even without the very tactful last sentence. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to persuade anyone's opinion either way :) Edits speak for themselves... -- Longhair\^talk 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This was blockable on the username alone. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Longhair is now patiently awaiting the arrival of the Portuguese police, on the basis of the careful case laid out in the first line of this post. </sarcasm> Orderinchaos 09:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Newbie user Camcd93

Apparently I am no longer on speaking terms with this young would-be helper. Can someone else see what they can do? This looks like something that could go either way, and someone needs to pay attention. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provide a dif of the revert. I'd also recommend not using cap's when talking to other users, it appears as if you are yelling at them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no revert of anything I wrote except the revert of what I wrote on his user page. I was yelling. He is being a bull in a China shop. Read all the complaints on his user page. He is trying. He is improving. He gave me a barnstar for helping him find tools for rapid reverts of recent edits and now he is reverting with too little thought, experience, judgement, or knowledge of either Wikipedia or the article subject matter. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, Camcd93 reverted some archiving I did on a talk page, but when I queried it with him he promptly corrected himself and apologized, which I felt showed both good faith and a willingness to listen on his part. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Was 4.250: Even seasoned editors and admin's make mistakes every now and then. Discussion is important though, with every edit comes more knowledge of how this wiki works. With that being said, Camcd93 can in fact remove comments from his/her talk page. If you have further issues, address them to an admin you cross paths with or consider asking someone from Wikipedia:Highly_Active_Users. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read User talk:Camcd93 and look at how fast a large number of complaints have come in. This guy's reverts have re-inserted at least one BLP violation, among other things. Did that get your attention? I have a feeling as well that this person is not a newbie. I don't know if anyone needs to jump in just yet, but more eyes on this person would be good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems from checkuser that this one is a reincarnation of WikiHero81 (talk · contribs) and probably Mcdiarmidc (talk · contribs). I'd suggest a block, personally; not here to be a contributor, but to play. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Treelo - what's happening?

Resolved

Hope someone here can help... An edit of mine was, in my belief, reverted in error by Treelo. I asked Treelo for an explanation as per this diff, but Treelo reverted that request, now suggesting I was a vandal. I made a further request to Treelo for a further explanation, but was reverted again with a higher level vandalism warning. Can someone either explain what I'm doing wrong, or else have a word in Treelo's ear? Ta.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The diff's provided were not obvious vandalism, nor were they unconstructive. I'm leaving a message on Treelo's talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder actually if Treelo's been influenced by a past record of vandalism from my IP address which is a shared one. For the record, past vandalism was nothing to with me.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Treelo also reverted this IP on SynergeticMaggot's talk page, here. While a request for a 15 minute block of Treelo from the IP obviously wouldn't be granted (we don't do cool-down blocks here), I'm a little concerned. I'd love to hear Treelo's analysis of what's going on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So would I. I'm under the impression that there is a decline to comment. 85.158.139.99, you should mark your talk page with {{subst:sharedip}}, or consider registering your account. Just advice, if you do not want to have all of this linked to you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks people for your assistance and suggestions. I actually prefer editing as an anon, so I no longer use my account. I do notice that Treelo's carried on reverting/warning regardless. Furthermore, I noticed that Treelo's reversion of my edit on User talk:SynergeticMaggot) was pretty well instant (less than 10 seconds). So all this makes me wonder whether he/she/(it?) has got some sort of home-grown rogue vandal-whacker running amok.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Treelo has had a number of complaints about reverts. He's been speed-reverting using Huggle. I think most of it is inadvertent, but he really needs to slow down and be more careful. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It looked more like Rollback, and Treelo is a rollbacker - and, I'll note with some concern that similar edits and reverts have resulted in users having the rollback tool removed in the past. I really, really, would like to hear Treelo's take on this. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Huggle does perform reverts using rollback if the user has that privilege. So this could still be a "Huggle issue" even if rollback was used. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Complaint_against_user_.22Treelo.22. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, everyone requirea an explanation so here goes. People have got hit by my ant-vandalism rampage over the last two days and the reason behind that is that I'm using a semi-automated tool called Huggle and through that seem to have created all sorts of bad-faith issues in error. I am not trying to be all out malicious or being too fast to click but it's creating that sort of image as I don't usually notice what sort of damage I do until long after I stop and look back at what I've done. You get a lot of vandalism to your page during using it and you get this mindset of ignoring everything as it's most likely going to be some vandal getting you back, obviously some good edits end up in the revert firing line. For that and a lot more, I have to say sorry and try to limit what I'm doing with it even further as I'm creating problems through trying to solve them and might just have to stop using the tool if it continues to create problems for people who are just trying to do the right thing, including myself. I'll re-assess the bad edits I've done to those who didn't deserve warnings or reverts and undo whatever reverts I did by accident or by making the wrong assumptions. I am very saddened by this and don't want to be blocked or have rights removed for being blind to others. treelo _talk 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've used Huggle before without creating these problems, and many other people continue to use it, also without said problems. I'm not sure how you reverted so many non-vandalism edits without realizing it, but I think that with all the complaints you've gotten, and the number of times this has been brought to the noticeboards, that it might be time you gave up on Huggle. It's creating more problems for you, and for everyone else, than good. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It may help reduce errors if you'd slow down a bit. Looks like you averaged about one revert every 7 seconds over the last 2 1/2 hours. --Onorem ♠ Dil 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3) One piece of advice, slow down just a bit. :) You don't have to be first to revert vandalism, and it's a lot smarter to make sure what you're seeing is vandalism, rather than quickly reverting pages. Just because an edit doesn't have an edit summary, doesn't mean it's a bad edit. You're doing a good job, just ease up on the throttle a bit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to disagree with all the "slow down" comments, because you've been told that before, to no avail (by me, among other people). Now I'm thinking it's time you said goodbye to Huggle. That's just my two cents. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Equazcion; avoiding Huggle, at least for a week or so, might be better than slowing down. Go back, take a breath, and without rushing thru, figure out what was going wrong, fix any mistakes you made, and figure out how to avoid doing that in the future. Then, when it's all settled, you can ease back into Huggle again. --barneca (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I respect the fact that Treelo has recognized his mistakes and would like to request that this be a last warning and not a removal. Treelo, check out User:Until(1 == 2)/Mea culpa and take your time. Echo Barneca:I'd advise that you not use huggle for a few days, and just observe others who revert edits you might wish to. Observe and learn from your mistakes. Best wishes. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave Huggle alone for a while, it's actually making me a bit frazzled simply using it! Of all the bad that's come from it, a lot more has been good in stopping genuine vandals and it's good to actually be doing something for the benefit of Wikipedia even though sometimes it feels like the opposite. As such, I'll take a week or so out from using it and see how things go when only reacting to serious vandalism attempts. treelo _talk 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

<--- I concur with everyone above; That's probably a good option, Treelo. I'd also ask, if you could, that you have a look at 85.158.139.99's talk page and note that the three final warnings weren't accurate, either by striking them or removing them with a note. Given that that complaint was what started the discussion, engaging them in discussion would be great. You might also check your userpage history and see if any other questions were reverted, as those users might also be deserving of a direct explaination. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! treelo _talk 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0 reverting to sockpuppetry?

Please see the contributions of User:Box Benefits and compare them to User:Libro0 . --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to confirm Baseball Card Guy's suspicion. Box Benefits is in fact a sock puppet. Please block it now. Thank you. Libro0 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I be a sockpuppet of a page Baseball Card Guy created?! Libro0 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You agree[40] that you are using sockpuppets, and you want your sockpuppet blocked? - auburnpilot talk 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather User:Libro0 is saying this is someone else's sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just under the impression these users were having a dispute. But it seems to be more. Rgoodermote  14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 is a problem user and has been abusing me and using false sockpuppet allegations against me. I would not be shocked that he would make his own sockpuppet to attack others, especially someone he keeps insinuating is me. We have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libro0 against him. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing harassment by User:Libro0 above.

I have been attempting with no particular success to mediate between Libro0 and I Hate CAPTCHAS, as Rgoodermote has been attempting mediation between Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy with I think no better success.

Libro0 seems to have some problems with civility to other editors of sports card articles, as well as what looks to me like ownership issues. He frequently reverts the changes of others and leaves what he admits are uncivil remarks on their talk pages, claiming that the incivility is warranted. The edit descriptions and talk page comments are peppered with phrases like will not be allowed and will be reverted and is not permitted. Perhaps understandably these do not always result in an appropriate reaction from the recipient.

He also claims that seemingly anyone editing card pages with an interest in baseball cards must be a sock puppet, and often states in postings on other editor's talk pages that he is talking to a sock puppet. This seems to be causing the recipients of these missives to not view Libro0 in a completely positive light.

Now, there are some indications that a few socks have floated through these card pages in the last week or two. But I don't believe that there is any particularly solid evidence at this time as to who is and who isn't a sock puppet. Would a CU be allowed/appropriate to try to sort out who might and might not be a sock? Loren.wilton (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would welcome any sort of investigation. I have nothing to hide. People need to stand up to cyberbullies! --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were to compare my interaction and edits in other areas it will become clear that my methods were the same here. The only difference is the recipient. I stand by all my contributions to wikipedia. They should definitely speak for themselves. As for Box Benefits: I most certainly did not admit to making it. I was stating that it was clearly made by someone trying very hard to incriminate me. I will be more than glad to stay away from the sports card pages seeing as how I have other contributions to make here. I want to state for the record that if I ever touch a sports card page that I insist that you block me. I give you my word of sacrifice which I doubt the puppets would do the same. In fact if any user other than I_H_C BCGuy and any of his alleged sock puppets uses edits those pages you may also block me. I understand that this may sound like a foolish risk but I will accept it nonetheless. If he is innocent he will not try and make a new puppet to get me banned. And I will certainly not try to get myself banned. Libro0 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • He/She was sneaky removing as the suspected sock puppeteer. [41] Then User:Omero Tognon shows up (see Special:Contributions/Omero Tognon) doing more of the same revisions under a new guise after you say (after he/she in his/her trademark passive-aggressive swipe lumps me in with someone else) "If he is innocent he will not try and make a new puppet to get me banned. " He/She apparently created another sock puppet to blame me. This is all getting out of hand. I am not I Hate CAPTCHAS just because I don't like some of the revisions that Libro0 made! --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole sequence at Omero Tognon looks highly suspicious. [42] Apparently the puppeteer forgot he/she was in his/her puppeteer guise and corrected the error that he/she originally made when they started the article. [43] Seems to as close to a smoking gun as one can find, especially given the timeline and the fact that this article is the name of the new sock. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you are trying to say is that I created an article (Omero Tognon) then tried to have it deleted while as 'Box Benefits'. Because that is what the log shows. Furthermore, how ridiculous can you get. Who in their right mind would create a page and then create a sock puppet of the same name. I left the sports card pages. So why don't you just leave me alone. Libro0 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Libro0 vandalized his suspected sockpuppet pages. [44] [45] It looks suspicious. I think that his actions especially with the creation of the Omero Tognon sock and the Omero Tognon article edits may be a desperate attempt to shift the blame away from him. Of course you would have your sock puppet take action against you to "prove" it is not you. Why else would you do it? --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world

User:Cult free world just came off of a two day block here for personal attacks and immediately launched into disruptive and tendentious editing again here.

No less than seven other editors have been working carefully to follow Wiki policies and build consensus and Cult free world continues to change the article without discussion, without consensus, to mirror the version that appears on his blog. This user has exhibited that he is incapable of (a) working with other editors to build consensus, (b) following Wikipedia policies, and/or (c) editing in a manner that does not promote his POV. (Please note this article is now in mainspace, not his userspace anymore, so is subject to all of the normal Wiki policies now, which he was able to bypass when it was in his userspace.)

There have been numerous complaints by many different editors on this user, he persists in disruptive, tendentious editing without any semblance of trying to work with other editors in a meaningful way, and he has failed to contribute meaningful to Wikipedia. Please, can it end? Renee (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to hit the "indef" button, but have blocked CFW for one month - I will reduce the length of the block if he pledges to edit in a constructive and collaborative manner. Neıl ☎ 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block, though I consider such a pledge from this user unlikely - but possible. Any objections to a resolved tag? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PLease can you provide diffs, if what Renee says is so I would think it would be a 3RR issue or something. CFW's entitled to his opinion of what the article should look like to be at his best, but he shouldn't be revert or edit warring, perhaps. However there are problems with some other editors on those articles perhaps being members of the group involved or similar ones, and having a WP:COI. If CFW was really that prone to this he wouldn't have survived this long on wiki.Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) diffs please Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkins, the diff listed above is a pretty good indication of what CFW was doing. I'm a bit surprised CFW hasn't been blocked indef for making edits like that right after a block for the same reason. I'm trying to be fair here, but I believe the same edits will occur in a month given CFW's track record. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to see it discussed a tiny bit more before marked as resolved, because if CFW was that bad he wouldn't have survived this long. On articles about New Religious Movements it's sometimes hard to make sure they aren't owned by the groups involved. Are there any editors on the anti-cult side of the article who are also finding CFW's approach unwise or wrong? Merkin's mum 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, my thoughts on a resolved tag were quite premature - I thought it was more cut-and-dry than it apparently is. I still think a block is in order, and concur with the block issued in this instance. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry-there were lots of edit conflicts there lol. The link was to the revision history. All it shows is another editor saying CFW's version is not "sane". That doesn't sound much like people trying to get on, to me. Merkin's mum 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this article off and on. It is very sensitive terrain, and CFW has consistently exhibited all the tact of a bull in a china shop here, as can be seen with this latest set of edits. I concur with Renee that building consensus is impossible with this user. Several editors have tried and been accused of either being brainwashed or on the payroll of this group. As an aside - This behavior is suspiciously identical to that of User:Shashwat_Pandey who used to frequent the same sets of articles and was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some difs from this page started May 1, [46], [47], [48], [49]. If you review the talk page here you'll see seven editors trying to work together, and then CFW posting original research, his interpretation of things, and ignoring other editors' attempts to get him to work together. He had been building this page on his user page and many of us (mistakenly) tried to work on that, only to find out that the rules for userpages were different (because he posted previously deleted content, I filed an MFD per admin advice here, and an admin reviewing a sanitized version kept it despite a 12 delete/7 keep vote (because it was userspace), and then CFW promptly reverted it to his OR, primary sourced version here. He posted an RFC for his userpage version of the article here and then ignored almost every editors responses. Every single editor who has worked on the previously deleted Sahaj Marg pages believe he is User:Shashwat pandey and User:Rushmi (see sock report here). The reason he looks "okay" in the beginning is because he had been booted off in two previous identities and he was attempting to come into the article via this third identity (again, review the sock evidence please).

I have made many mistakes with respect to this user because I mistakenly believed that userspace was held to the same Wiki policies as mainspace. When I learned that it wasn't I began to ignore the user and his space until the article was posted in mainspace, where I began to work on it. I am a good faith contributer to Wiki and have worked on dozens of articles, including creating several myself. I don't think this user will change and urge an indefinite ban. Despite having multiple POVs on the Sahaj Marg talk page, we were making progress and it was relatively peaceful. User:Cult free world has demonstrated time and again, across three identities, that he is only on Wikipedia to promote original research and a POV. Please indefinitely ban him. Renee (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The term I was looking for was sleeper sockpuppet (in answer to the question of how did he last so long). i.e., when a previously disgraced/blocked editor goes away and comes back working on other somewhat related articles, and then magically, out of the blue, decides to "create" an identical article out of 5x previously deleted material (and this one talked about it on his blog). If he goes away again I think we have to be very careful and watch for another sleep sockRenee (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for secondary neutral sources as a Wiki Editor? My observation is that this user just ignores other editors. I also observed that this user incorrectly draws hasty conclusions on sub-judice matters. This user also tends to get personal with allegations which are unwarranted for in the Wiki world. With so much negativity, perhaps its wise not to have this user as well the article on the Wikipedia and bring an end to everything!! -- Mayawi (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

← A good block, and one well deserved. He has been the issue of many threads at AN/ANI, and his unwillingness to cooperate and work with others in a constructive manner is determental to the project. His disruptions and trolling actions only leads me to believe that the user will not reform until faced with such sanctions that will severely limit his abilities to edit -- and an indef. block is certainly not out of the question if the behavior does not make a turnaround. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• +1 for blocking, long as you like. This user is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, he's here to remodel it to support his external agenda. Consider my limited patience well and truly exhausted. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse the block. This editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively or to improve the encyclopedia in any way, beyond pushing his point of view and berating those that don't agree with him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Consider this a non-admin endorsement of this block. CFW has shown that the previous block did not change his editing habits, and the project is better off not having an editor who choose to use his personal agenda as a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• This was lenient; an indefinite block would appear well and truly warranted here. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• :I was of the view everyone should get one last chance - previously he'd only had a 48 hour block for this sort of thing and a jump to indefinite would, perhaps, have been over-harsh. If he reverts to type when the block expires, then I'll be the first to press the indef button. Neıl ☎ 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure this block is preventing disruption. I just can't help but feel that there was a good contributor in there that we failed to reach. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Look, why don't we try topic-banning the guy first? See if there's anything worth saving? --Relata refero (disp.) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed

Resolved

First of all, I apologize to everyone if I'm going about this incorrectly.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it has confirmed that Girl Get it (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). Is this the right place to suggest a block of Girl Get it?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible disruptive canvassing?

There's been a debate about which fields to include in Template:Infobox_automobile. In particular, a couple users very strongly wish to add fuel economy. I recently noticed that one of these users (Skyemoor) has notified several other users about the debate which have similar views. See [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], and [55]. Skyemoor has been blocked previously for editing warring on the global warming article. There is also another anon user (198.151.13.8) which followed up on several of these notifications to post links and notified one additional user. I'm not sure if this anon is the same person as Skyemoor, but they have very similar interests. See [56], [57], [58]/[59], and [60]. I'm not sure what to do about this, if anything. Thanks. swaq 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now the anon is posting on all the energy/fuel efficiency talk pages. This definitely seems like campaigning to me... See [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and [67]. swaq 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes on talk pages are not only ok, they're helpful (although some editors tend to like seeing users (and not IPs) do this kind of thing. I don't think this has strayed from the limits set forth in WP:CANVAS yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me that they are rallying people they expect to support their cause. swaq 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The messages on the talk pages are neutral enough and as yet, I don't think there are enough user talk page messages to call this canvassing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bomb threat against "Wikipedia Building"

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

Resolved

 – insubstantial threat, office staff contacted as a precaution, school IT manager informed via phone

Would someone like to contact the Avalon East School Board (St. John's, Newfoundland) about this edit? NawlinWiki (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:ABUSE...... Dendodge..Talk^Help 17:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe contact Wiki head office too? D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look or read like a meaningful threat but they should likely be told about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's some kid having a temper tantrum, but a lil visit from the proper authorities wouldn't hurt to help calm them down. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reported at WP:ABUSE, which seems to have a pretty decent backlog. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "Wikipedia Building?" I've always pictured a modest suite of offices somewhere. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No there is not, and the street address of the foundation's offices are not publicly available either. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not to say that it's impossible to find where they are......... — TreasuryTag — t — c 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that this is more of a discipliniary issue than a safety issue - no way should a kid be abusing public internet connections to behave like that! — TreasuryTag — t — c 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Making a threat like this is a felony. Should we call the cops when it's coming from a school IP? Likely not. But remember- the high school murders are being done by kids in high school. Bstone (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I made a quick call and spoke to the manager of IT for the school district. I sent him the diff and he'll take it from here. Case closed. Bstone (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did he have anything interesting to say? — TreasuryTag — t — c 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Legal suit against wikipedia concerning user Neutral777

Resolved

 – No action to be taken yet, pending OTRS issue

I pointed this user in the direction of the complaints department because he wanted to know why he was blocked by an admin after using that username for 2 years. I was wondering if any of the admins could take a look and explain to him about the legal side of editing Wikipedia because he doesn't seem to get the fact that he is in the middle of talking to the lawyers (Attorney) of Wikipedia in America surely he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia? Below is the response which he posted on my talk page User:Christopher140691 Anyway can someone look at it for me as im not an admin I don't have the knowledge you do here. Christopher140691 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you didn't exactly answer my question I was trying to ask. I don't want to complain about Administrators because I already was on the phone with an attorney from the Wikipedia (Godwin). He turned me over to the head Administrator and had me discuss the situation with that person. I'm not sure who they are because they have asked me to use the Wikipedia now for my questions. The only questions I'm left with are these: What can I post and what can't I? I read the Wikipedia policy and it seems that even the head Administrator has a double standard about it. While they claim everyone has the freedom to contribute they also say I can't post anything about Ultumix GNU/Linux as I understand. What I don't understand is why? They say I'm advertising Products and Services. I'm not. Ultumix is a free GNU/Linux distribution like Ubuntu and should be posted on the Wikipedia just like Ubuntu is. The problem is that I don't charge for my services when I help people online so they can't accuse me of advertising my services. I'm currently trying to investigate the Wikipedia because I have a strong feeling that the people that are being paid (above the Administrators such as attorneys, lawyers, and trademark owners) are trying to make a profit and will do anything to ensure that money keeps coming their way. The reason I feel that way is because of some of the demands that they made from me that didn't sound right. So you see I'm trying to figure out if the Wikipedia is truly open or not and if it's corrupt. I don't think I need to expose the Wikipedia but I have been praying for their staff and other Non-Profits that are secretly doing things like this. It makes me very sad that I see this all the time in organizations. I'm an Assistant Scout Master and as such I can't discuss the corruption I've seen in the BSA but I've seen it all over in all different organizations. I just wish the Wikipedia would deal with anything they have going on. One thing is for sure. The original intent of the Policy is not being upheld, it's being exaggerated. Thats why I started [2] http://www.pediaopeness.org. Neutral777 Neutral777 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Long tale short, the user doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) Wikipedia's notability standards. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

From the PediaOpenness site: "PediaOpeness is very similar to the standard Wikipdedia accept that you don't have to jump threw as many hoops to post a page here." (And I guess you also don't need to know how to spell.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I'm not clear on request, either. If an article on some software distribution called "Ultumix" has sources that establish its notability, then it'll probably have an article - just as Ubuntu does. If the only sources for such an article are non-independent (the developer or the developer's site) or unreliable (blogs and such), then chances are good that such an article would be deleted - not because the software is bad, or because someone will profit in some fashion by quashing the article, but because independent sources cannot confirm the assertion that the subject is notable. I'm unclear on who the "Head Administrator" is, nor am I clear on who would profit from the exclusion of this subject. The perception appears to be that every subject and every individual is entitled to an article in the English Wikipedia, and - while a lofty goal indeed - it's not possible. The standard of inclusion is notability, and any article that can demonstrate it should probably be included. Also, WP:TINC. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of which department to send it to as im new on wikipedia only been here for 4 days so thats why I wanted to send it to the admins noticeboard. Christopher140691 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's the "Head Administrator", anyway? — iride scent 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take action on this guy without contacting myself or Mike Godwin first, (and referencing that this guy is Ultumix from Openwikipedia). There is an ongoing OTRS issue about this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious complaint, though. Why is it that free speech so often equates to free advertising space? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I must be that head administrator :-) Neutral777 has had problems because of the openwikipedia page, which I am aware is being sorted effectively privately and will involve a new format on a different URL. Neutral777 has has problems here because he doesn't understand some of our guidlines on self promotion and COI. I've had a productive chat with him via email and I think he's now aware of what the problems were with his original editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Drstrangelove57

Resolved

 – Asserted right to vanish so this is moot. - Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After submitting this ANI report this morning, Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs) was warned (multiple times) regarding continued personal attacks. After receiving the warning, the editor has continued disruption, namely:

• Statement that he will edit war ad infinitum
• Severe violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA
• Attack of an otherwise uninvolved admin
• Personal attacks
• More personal attacks (apparently we're all thugs)
• colossal scumbag
• Anyone disagreeing is part of a "vile bunch"

Though he claims that he is "done", his edit history, continued personal attacks, and stated intent to make a POINT says otherwise. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what's going on. For some reason, User:Happy-melon deleted his talk page (and fully protected it!), so all the warnings have been removed. I'm going to ask him about that right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was right to vanish. Blaxthos, he's gone so this is pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. (2nd)

Would an admin please review the evidence and issue appropriate blocks? Also, in general, WP:SSP has a three-week backlog, and has had one for some time. Help is appreciated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Tor user making edits with my real life name

As can be seen from the edit history of the page an anonymous Tor IP user has started making edits with comments that include my real life name. Please can someone semi-protect the archive to stop the IP users from removing content and also remove the edits history comments that show my real life name? Blocking the IP may help as it's obvious the user is using it to make personal attacks. Fnag aton 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic. I see the IP was blocked as an open proxy. Might I suggest WP:OVERSIGHT for those diffs? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast block and advice, I will go to oversight. Fnag aton 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting the diffs now pending oversight later (they'd have to be deleted anyway to do the oversight). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Templating

I've indefblocked Ilikecheeseallday (talk · contribs) as a vandalism-only account, as its only contributions were welcoming new users with "Welcome to Wikipedia, but you might want to leave because YOU JUST GOT PWNED". What a peach. Unfortunately, the edits can't be rolledback, since they created new pages for each user. Anyone feel like replacing some of these with a stock {{welcome}} template? The list can be found here. Thanks in advance for the assist. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Well, I got a couple, and it looks the rest of them have been done - should we mark resolved? --Umrguy42 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup - You guys are fast. Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed resolved template for now...I was actually just on my way here to report Ilikecheeseallday, as well as another user, Nman649 (talk · contribs). His contribs consist almost entirely of biting other newbies and creating mazes and stories in both the mainspace and his userspace. I'd support an indef block on this one too, to be honest. GlassCobra 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All of his bitey welcomes were from a month ago, but I fixed them all anyway; better late than never. The welcomes weren't in the same league as Ilikecheese's, his mazes have been deleted, and his story is about to be deleted (at MfD now). Not sure an indef block is needed, so much as some advice, which I will attempt to give now. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Threat to kill Blueboy by anon IP 75.164.85.217 after making a death threat two days ago

File:Threat Cat.jpg

Let's not overreact here, ok?⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

After 75.164.85.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this death threat against anyone who blocked him, I suggested that the IP retract the death threat. Now today, the IP has made a threat aimed right at Blueboy. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And since this is the second death threat, perhaps contacting the authorities is in order? I'd do it myself, if I could. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm about to email Qwest ... and also, I'd think some calls to the Tucson Police Department and to Mike Godwin are in order. Blueboy 96 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page (I couldn't get the {{subst:uw-anonblock}} template to work...) until this matter is resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call ... but given this guy's history, I see no reason that the page should be unprotected even after this "dispute" is resolved. I changed the block to the duration of the softblock (one year). Trying to figure out how to get hold of the Tucson police ... Blueboy 96 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It being a death threat, maybe a 911 call could be in order? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious that the IP threatens to kill Blueboy96 over being blocked ... yet this IP has only been blocked by me (twice now) and Ryulong (once). Is that sort of like saying "if you are so bad, then eat this kitten," but Blue is the kitten rather than me? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an "emergency call" is needed; it is extemely unlikely that the ip knows Blueboy96's RL identity and location, and the police will need to trace the ip through the provider anyway which makes it an investigation matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

<-Time for this little prick to have his collar felt by Jennifer Justice. An interesting difference I've noticed between legal and death threats: legal threats have an immediate chilling effect, driving away editors, whilst death threats are cumulative - you shrug them off one at a time, but after a certain number (3, 5, 10, 20 - it depends on the person) you give it up and go away unhappy for a very long time. And we act immediately on legal threats, but tend to arse about on death threats. Zero tolerance, I say. Let Lilly Law have her way with the scrote. (after ec: no, not 911, obviously, but yes, local law enforcement or FBI tip line). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Already shot off an email to Qwest. I specifically mentioned in the subject line that it was a death threat ... now it's in their hands. Blueboy 96 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV, this explicit threat should be reported to authorities. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV is not policy. Must you try to seek publicity from every single minor threat on Wikipedia? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, this is a very inappropriate place to begin a personal and civil attack against me. I suggest people report things because it's the right thing to do. I am not seeking nor do I want publicity. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personally attacking about it. It's a question, based off of evidence of your past behavior. Fact is, WP:TOV is not policy, despite your blatantly disingenuous attempts to pretend it is so, and convince others that it is. It's disruptive to the project, and it will stop right now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, this is simply false. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and the easiest way to promote something to policy is to have people treat it like its policy. It's unclear to me whether this really should be reported to the FBI, but your above comment was out of line. WilyD 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. That's why in big letters on the page it says "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." and "An earlier version of this page was proposed as a policy or guideline but did not gain consensus". Essays do not become policy because people treat them like policy. Essays become policy when a consensus of editors want it to become policy. That's how it works, and how it has always worked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And the most appropriate place for this discussion is on WP:TOV. Not here. Ok? Bstone (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bstone on this. Despite what Dr. Johnny Fever says, the phone company doesn't have "phone cops". 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

O RLY ? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean cops don't have phone companies. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish they did, they'd probably have better service than the telcoms. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on Help Desk Wikipedia:Help desk#Darkstar, the video game. HOAX issue.

Somebody's threatening to sue because of the use of the word "hoax" by an editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket number: 2008050710018801. Revert block and ignore the threat issuer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know there was an OTRS number (no mention of it on the help desk), so I blundered into this already. I courtesy blanked the AfD, and removed a link to the non-article from Darkstar. I don't think that was really a "legal threat", and I don't see the need for reverting, blocking, or ignoring them. They have a point, even if they got a little excited making it. I can't find the essay right now, but there's one about not blocking people for legal threats if the "threat" is vague and they might have a legit beef; if somebofy wants to link to that, cool. --barneca (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. Unhelpful usually, but might be useful for once here. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks. --barneca (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Swatjester actions review

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

Please take further discussion af ToV to WT:TOV. Swatjester's actions have been reviewed and there is no administrative action needed. Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Swatjester has threatened to block me for viewing WP:TOV as something completely serious and suggesting others do as well. This is absolutely disgusting and horrifying. Furthermore, Swatjester has accused me of seeking publicity by responding and reporting credible threats of violence to the authorities. This is absolutely baseless and a personal attack. It crosses the line of civility and, I suggest, be stopped. The most appropriate place for discussion as to the status of WP:TOV is on the talk page. Instead Swatjester has turned AN/I into his battleground. I am feeling threatened and harassed and believe it's not proper. I have contacted some administrators on IRC and been suggested to report it here. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say something is policy in Wikipedia, it has a very specific meaning - that it has been officially accepted as such. Saying things like "I view WP:TOV as a policy and will suggest to others that they do the same" reads like a promise to misrepresent to other users the status of the WP:TOV essay to me. - Merzbow (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When you misrepresent something like TOV as policy, when it is not, it confuses users. And ought not be done. It can be disruptive. There are ways to publicize... the foundation mailing list, the wikien mailing list, T:CENT, one note to AN, and the village pumps. Mentioning it as policy on every ANI threat is not the way to go. Swat did the correct thing. I am a party on the TOV talk page, I may have bias NonvocalScream (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The main obstacle to it becoming policy is WP:BEANS. Please be more careful in what you represent as policy. Feedback is better than blocking in this instance, and I fully support reporting real world matters of sufficient weight to real world authorities. Thank you for your responsible choices, hoping you accept this constructively, and let's all turn down the heat on this a bit. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TOV is a debased currency, 99% of the supposed threats are entirely unrealistic and calling it a "policy" when it plainly is not, is pointless and disruptive. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has called it a policy - here's my tuppence; Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

totally agree that turning the heat down is the way to go - and I don't really think anyone's really stepped over the line here. I'm not sure that saying 'per WP:TOV' is hugely misleading - I think there are quite a number of essay's which get bandied about in this way, no? - but for sure, bstone is advocating for the proposal, and I happen to agree strongly with him. Ideally I would hope that the thread like the one a couple of sections above could contain just one short response "resolved per TOV" - thus minimising the drama. Swat is entirely correct however that it's not currently policy. It does seem sensible to me to draw attention to the proposal which directly addresses threads such as the above one when they occur (with worrying frequency) - perhaps if we can stay calm, Swat and bstone might be able to figure out an acceptable wording - maybe 'per the proposal, WP:TOV'? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to threats "per TOV" is appropriate and fine. However, SWAT suggesting that I am only involved in TOV for publicity is a separate issue than my viewing TOV with all seriousness. It's uncivil and a personal attack to suggest I am only involved in TOV for publicity. Further, SWAT edited TOV despite being a very involved party (TOV is currently fully protected). Lastly, threatening to use his blocking power when he is clearly an involved party is wrong and a violation of the admin policies. Bstone (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I edit the page with talk page consensus, to implement a change that you asked for using {{editprotected}}, after asking your permission. Are you seriously going to go there? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Swat never said he would block you. You brought up blocking, and in that hypothetical case, he gave a reason. Enigma ^message 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT very clearly said he would block me. No, I would block you...etc. Why would he even bring it up if not to have a chilling effect. It's simply inappropriate. Further, he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by his statement that I am only involved in TOV for seeking publicity. Absolutely inappropriate. Bstone (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you brought up the possibility of blocking, by saying "You will block me..." He merely gave a reason in that scenario. Enigma ^message 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent "Must you try to seek publicity from every single minor threat on Wikipedia?" is not uncivil or a personal attack. Incidentally, are you reading the other comments above from your peers? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then what is it? It is not a discussion about the essay known as TOV. It very clearly crosses the line between professional disagreement to personal attack. Bstone (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Swat interpreted the initial comment in a way that is not reasonable. "Per foo" on Wikipedia does not imply that the linked page is a policy. Presumably this is just a spillover from the related disputes but I think Swatjester was a bit out of line here; no reason to throw around terms like "blatantly disingenuous", etc. when nobody is doing anything at all disingenuous. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Per WP:TOV, this explicit threat should be reported to authorities. Thank you." Emphasis bolded and emphasis mine. This was phrased in a directive way, it is reasonable that comment, coupled with his other comments about treating it as such (policy). That is basically what Bstone did. That is why Swat reacted. You understand why we can't go about doing that? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the normal way human beings converse and express their opinions. He expressed a view that an action should be taken and linked to a page to support his argument. Totally normal and only those who are intently digging for fault would find it here. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• We have Revert, Block, Ignore for a reason, and that reason is exactly so that we don't overreact to every teenage keyboard warrior that thinks it's funny to make threats on a public website. If we starting calling the SWAT teams in every time, the problem is going to get worse, not better. Black Kite 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Black Kite - and regardless - we really should have this conversation over at WP:TOV - I wouldn't object to you (or anyone) moving these comments there. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree with those who dismiss the recent specific death threats made against a particular editor by saying (based on what reliable sources?) "99% of the supposed threats are entirely unrealistic" or a "minor threat" from "every teenage keyboard warrior that thinks it's funny to make threats on a public website." There are certainly other sites which delight in revealing the real world names and addresses of Wikipedia editors. Today's anonymity can disappear all too readily. Kooks do sometimes carry out their stated intentions to kill people, and it is irresponsible not to report all such specific death threats to the appropriate law enforcement personnel, notwithstanding the essay/guideline/policy status of WP:TOV. Edison (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've had quite a few similar threats and ignored them, to be honest; obviously, if instead of saying "I am going to kill you" or whatever, they actually said "I know you live in XXXX and your name is YYYY", then the reaction would be different. Black Kite 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just to point out, this is a discussion about whether or not swatjester or bstone are in the wrong, not whether TOV should become policy, theres a place for that, and its not here--Jac16888 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that I made no suggestion whatsoever as to whether the essay should be a policy. I had never heard of it until today. What I assert here is that every death threat should be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Ignoring such threats as childish nonsense should have ended after the Columbine High School massacre, the perpetrators of which made online death threats in the preceding months. To the extent that Swatjester discouraged such notification of law enforcement authorities, I disagree with his actions, regardless of the merits of some essay. Edison (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Checkuser confirmed persistent sockmaster needs indef

MarkBA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was recently blocked for mass puppetry as established per checkuser(see list of previous puppets) and now it turns out that he continued where he left off the new sock is 78.99.161.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) confirmed by checkuser [68] [69], now the new sock and the master account need blocking. The good faith of administrators was completely abused here. MarkBA has 4 blocks, but only one shows up in the block log of the main account and they treated him like a new user every time. See these talk pages for example [70] [71] [72] where he is constantly welcomed, invited to discussion, advised to create an account all the same steps taken over and over, with incredibly short blocks “not to bite” for example the 4th block is only for 3 hours [73] for “Disruptive editing: Multiple reverts with uncivil edit summaries”. The socks were generally used for mass incivility, personal attacks among other things like [74] often using edit summaries [75] [76] to abuse fellow editors. The latest sock 78.99.161.255 is no less disruptive with every single edit is a revert of a user. I think it’s safe to say that if all the edits were made with the main account it would be blocked already but by avoiding scrutiny and abusing good faith and being treated like a new user every time, the accounts got away with a slap on the wrist. The sockmaster account, MarkBA was already under restrictions per the Digwuren arbcom case [77]. Only the Checkuser confirmed socks are listed in the category there can be many more currently undetected. Admin action is needed against the main account so it can be properly tagged as sockmaster and the socks can be collected and their contributions can be followed from there. Hobartimus (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem I see (and I know absolutely nothing about this situation) is that it looks like he is using rotating IP addresses. There is a strict policy against long blocks for IP addresses. If a checkuser has determined they are his, I would suggest a block to his main account for sockpuppetry. We have to do something to make him realize that that sort of conduct is not welcome here. Notified him of this thread in case he has something to say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am really surprised by this "report" because the diffs point to old edits and MarkBA has already been blocked for them. The sockpuppetry tag that Hobartimus is trying so hard to place on his user page was removed by an administrator for a good reason.[78] The situation is very complex and involves edit warring by a large number of editors, including MarkBA and Hobartiumus (who filed this report). The dispute resolution between all the involved editors is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment with the help of User:Elonka. I do not understand why Hobartimus filed this report because the sockpuppetry situation has already been discussed at that Elonka's page and administrative action has taken place. I can only guess that it has something to do with the fact that Elonka is away for few days for personal reasons. I urge Hobartiums to return to User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment because the discussion on this lengthy and complex edit war should be centralized. I would like also to encourage any administrator interested in this thread to read the linked page. It will give you a broader picture of what is going on. Tankred (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

• Elonka is expected to be off-wiki in the next couple of days and seems to have no problem with this discussion here
• this IP (confirmed by Checkuser only yesterday) has been used after MarkBA's block for abusive sockpuppetry expired on 27 April (so these are not old edits regarding the case)
• MarkBA is already under restrictions according to the Digwuren arbcom case and the edit summaries of the new revert-only IP have not been that civil
• I'm not "really surprised" by this report, but I wouldn't have posted here if the credibility of Hobartimus hadn't been attacked in an unjustified way

Squash Racket (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing complex here. The latest socking was confirmed by checkuser Tatcher [79] the abusive sockmaster MarkBA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) need blocking ASAP as confirmed by checkuser. The latest puppet last active a few days ago 78.99.161.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) still remain unblocked untagged and the main account needs to be dealt with. The community should decide wheter checkuser confirmed repeat abusive sockpuppetry is something to endorse or reward or sanction. Another "slap on the wrist" type block could be taken as open encouragement of this type of abuse since getting CheckUser confirmed proof is not always an easy task even in this case there can be much more abuse and disruption, only unconfirmed by CheckUser. As per admin Ricky81682 commenting above, blocking dynamic IP-s is not an effective way to deal with this, I endorse an indefinite or substantial block of the main pupeteer account, MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hobartimus (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

False accusations, and heated personal opinions do not count into debate, therefore this thread is about that. Look at yourself first and your actions before complaining, I am NOT a sockpuppeteer (no evidence whatsoever), that's a personal opinion of several editors. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 07:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately MarkBA lost his mind. The more unfortunate thing is that he (as you can see) made it in a "clever way" by "exporting" those blocks coming from edit wars and uncivility and personal attacks to his IPs, so his account remained "clear" of blocks. However his "checkuser" case connected those IPs together and to him, therefore Hobartimus is right, MarkBA was blocked way more times than his block log shows.

MarkBA played out his restrictions through IPs, as well as general policies, like WP:NPA and all the others. Also impersonated me through doing similar or same edits, continuing what I stopped: edit warring (two of those IPs listed as "socks"). The descending tensions between Slovak and Hungarian users delivered by the User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment was multiple times compromised by these IPs as you can see (for example resulting in this thread, and slightly growing tensions again).

Mark has a "problem" in general with the Hungarian editorial community what he had explained on his userpage in a big, red provocative banner[80]. It was removed by Elonka (talk · contribs) [81]. As you can see, Mark also claimed that he had "retired", while the "checkuser" confirmed that he had not. He replied within hours to his blocking notice, despite his last edit was two weeks ago. That misleading banner was later removed by himself.

My feeling is that MarkBA is not intrested in decreasing the tensions or reaching any consensus or whatever, but only in "killing them all" (Hungarian editors' accounts/edits) thing. Maybe this is because of his adolescence (he is allegedly 16 years old) or his political beliefs don't accept any discussion or compromise wih Hungarians, or something else, I do not know, and doesn't matter. Unfortunately his recent actions made me thinking that he wish to act only in a way wich can maintain the level of tensions between Slovak and Hungarian users, therefore he does not have a place amongst us at these times, only after the experiment had reached all its goals. Maybe a half/one year later. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious YOU aren't interested in decreasing the tensions, dear Rembaoud... You were mixing politics, were edit-warring, and now it's ironic you want to exclude someone who didn't take part really much. False accusation no. 2 and don't speak about someone's personal data, OK? You should be silent if you don't know anything about me. Again, socks aren't mine at all; the IP range just happens to be in my area; I'm not responsible for the IPs. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 11:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators reviewing the case should be aware that apart from the conclusive checkuser evidence several administrators already reviewed some of the case when a previous block for abusive sockpuppetry was applied but MarkBA repeatedly blanked these discussions from his talk page in an attempt to hide the evidence. MarkBA moved most of his editing abuse, harassment, edit warring, personal attacks to the sockpuppets but returned "within hours" when the main account was blocked to ask for unblock [82]. See some of the old discussions here, [83] [84], and a consensus of several admins that MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeed the pupeteer for example [85] [86], the talk page even had to be protected by administrator Yamla a little later due to constant blanking by MarkBA [87]. In the face of overwhelming evidence these continued denials by MarkBA above for example can only be seen as a weak attempt to confuse administrators, hide past actions from scrutiny, so the next puppet can get the same "red carpet treatment" as the previous ones. Starting with level 1(!!) warnings [88] more warnings without action [89] invitations to discussion of the same user invited multiple times before [90] advice to create an account given to a long time abuser [91] and even when the block comes (4th block of the user, under restriction already), who already had an 1 week block before it's only for 3 hours [92], all the diffs come from the talk page of a single puppet confirmed by checkuser only later [93] as it takes time to get confirmation. Time of good faith users is wasted this way constantly with no progress other than warnings or miniblocks for a dynamic IP and no consequence to the main pupeteer account with all the blocks not following him and not showing up in his block log. If something is not done admins will have to start giving out level 1 warnings again, when dealing with a multiple times blocked, under restriction, checkuser confirmed abusive sockmaster, who has no intention of giving up socking, instead denies that the whole thing ever happened. The main account should be blocked and identified as a repeat confirmed sockmaster so future users and admins at least know what they are dealing with. Hobartimus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

False again; I demand an apology for your false claims and lies. I see that WP isn't really interested in protecting editors from stalking & harassment. You were (are?) a notorious edit warrior as well, so it's silly to see this attempt from you to hide your own actions. By the way, I have the right to do with my pages as I see fit, so blanking has nothing to do with that. 78.99.161.255 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please block this Dereks1x sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked by Barneca.

HappyFarmerShoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per their User page (featuring the indef blocked box, standard Derek MO) and my Talk. Thanks in advance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --barneca (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, belated thanks :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, etc

Hey, help with this would be cool. We're arguing over which images go where in the article. I say the more current, 3D rendition of the character should go on top while the old art on a Japanese TCG card should just be below in another section because it really isn't suitable to represent the article. However, User:A Link to the Past keeps reverting my edits, thus removing the 3D image altogether and putting the TCG image back on top. It's pretty annoying.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No admin intervention is needed here. Have you tried any steps in our dispute resolution process, like taking it to the talk page of the article, asking for a third opinion, or making a request for comments? Fram (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking of Melissa Farley

I want to point out that the article Melissa Farley has been blanked, ostensibly at the request of the subject of the article, Melissa Farley. Because I am the other party in an NPOV dispute with the editor who blanked the page, and because the action just took place, I'm a bit nervous that any attempt on my part to revert the blanking will result in potential revert warring. Hence, my request for outside intervention in what should only require a simple revert on my part. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the details of what's going on there but it seems to have been contentious for a long time and you guys might benefit from some outside input, such as a third opinion, restarting your mediation case, a content RFC and so on. I've restored the article and I've left the user a message. Sarah 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested in starting a mediation case, but the other editor in the dispute has twice now simply dropped out of sight each time a mediation case begins, only to come back with the same complaints once the case has been closed for lack of input. I have also tried an RfC before, but most other editors are simply scared off, both by the intensity of the dispute, and the sheer backlog of material concerning the case. WP:3O seems like it might be a good option, however – if another editor who is actually willing to wade through the history of the dispute and the issues involved were to weigh in with a well-considered opinion, it might help settle a dispute between two editors who are completely at loggerheads over this. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Voters need blocking

Why is it that certain people are blocked after checkuser and some are not.

Is this reason? Multiple voting from the same IP.

Or is there a reason to allow leniency since it is not proven, just suspected. On the other hand, if we use the standard "leniency until proven" then some of the people blocked after the checkuser should be unblocked.

RFCU link

Please explain. I am open to explanation just as I became more aware of the "keep" side after I submitted an AFD that I thought was an obvious "delete". So I am not accusing anyone of anything. JerryVanF (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was overturned at the DRV here, and one of the reasons for overturning was that only the sockpuppets !voted to keep

The users have not still been blocked because the sockpuppet case has not still been closed, look at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dwyerj. Once it's closed, the closing admin will block the adequate users. Wait until the case is closed, look at what the closing admin does. Then, if you still see something wrong, then please discuss it with the closing admin *before* coming here to ANI, in case that it's just a mistake or a misunderstanding from the admin and you are able to solve any problem by talking with him. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgian "friend" still around

For background information, see this AN/I thread and this one. Guy is following his archennemies, such as me: reverting me on an article with an insulting comment and threats on my talk page (promises me some strange sexual assault). As that IP has been stable at least for 2 days, maybe it will be usefull to do something. Thanks. Bradipus (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

However, no-one seems to have tried reasoning with him on his talkpage. Just a straight block without prior interaction would be a bit impulsive, wouldn't it? Lradrama 08:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously didn't have a look at te above referred pages. Did you just read the comments to his edits? This guy is the worst vandal we ever had on WP:fr, and he is issuing death threats towards WP:fr admins since he was banned about 2 years ago. He is just a guy with with a very serious issue, his IP's are regularly blocked on WP:en. What kind of reasoning do you suggest with somebody like that O_o  ? Bradipus (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and it seems to quack. See m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. LegitimateSock (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

• TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:bardcom

Editor is reverting all of my edits blindly and is engaged in edit-warring. For many articles, he has now reverted three times. He started by reverting my edits on 13 different articles, of which he's reverted 6 to the point of 3 reverts this morning. While I can keep reverting, etc, it's obvious that this editor is wikistalking. Check out his contributions page to see that most of his reverts have no explanation, etc. and are mostly with the (non) reason (Rv.).

I've put some background on User Talk:Nakon as he blocked anon IP's for this behaviour recently. I reported this on the WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism page but was advised to take it here.

• 3 Examples:
• Looking at the revision history of Denmark here, Tharky's first revert was at 14:08. His most recent revert has also reverted another editors edits in the meantime.

• Looking at the revision history of Chondrus crispus, he has reverted 3 times. No explanation, no Talk.

• Looking at the revision history of Demography of the United Kingdom, same thing.

--Bardcom (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strictly, this is a content dispute, although the edit-warring back and forth is not great conduct. The dispute appears to be over whether "British Isles" or "Britain and Ireland" should be used. TharkunCoil is convinced it should be "British Isles". Similarly, Bardcom is convinced it should be "Britain and Ireland". I haven't actually found anywhere where either have stated why this should be the case, or why the other option is wrong, but as it's a dispute spanning numerous articles I may have missed it. Is there any reasoning behind this, anywhere? I would suggest WP:RFC is the appropriate venue to get a determination on which is the correct terminology to use. Neıl ☎ 11:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, with respect, I disagree that it's a content dispute, and the dispute is not over whether "British Isles" or "Britain and Ireland" should be used. I've replied to your query on my Talk page. If it was a content dispute, there would be evidence of a dispute, or a discussion, or conflicting reasons given on the reverts. There are none of these things. You are leaping to an assumption by saying it's a content dispute, and this plays down the wikistalking, lack of AGF, blind reverting with no reasons, and edit warring behaviour of TharkunColl. This has nothing to do with content and everything to do with TharkunColl targetting my edits. Not anybody elses. Not other articles with similar content. Just my edits. --Bardcom (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a content dispute. Evidence of the dispute is all the reversion, re-reversions, re-re-reversions, and so on. I have looked at the reasoning you give on your talk page, and it does appear sound, but it IS a content issue, and TharkunColl only appears to be "stalking" you because you are the person who made the edits in the first place. Reverting one specific edit a specific editor has made across a number of articles does not amount to wikistalking. I should point out I have blocked TharkunColl before, and threatened him with indefinite blocking, so please don't think I'm taking his side against you. Now, TharkunColl has not given good reasons for his reversions, and so I will have a word with him as that isn't great, but please avoid simply reverting back immediately. Try continuing to engage him on his talk page. Neıl ☎ 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Neil. It's not too big a leap to say it's a content dispute, but it's still an assumption really :-). I wasn't sure what to do. We could have reverted back and forth in an edit war I suppose, and I was getting frustrated as it's very time-consuming to revert tons of articles all because a single editor is having a bad hair day, so I was looking for early intervention. This editor is breaking many policies and being disruptive - my personal feeling is that this editor knows how Wikipedia works well enough to know what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, and I believe a firmer stance should be taken with non-newbies. I'd already reverted his current batch of edits before your comment above, but I'll have a go at continuing to engage him on his talk page first. I'd appreciate if you could continue to keep an eye though. Thanks again for the good advice. --Bardcom (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out I did just spot Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom which is on pretty much this same issue, and didn't really establish a consensus either way. Given this, though, I think one of the caveats arrived at there ("please don't change mentions of British Isles without consensus") is a reasonable one, although I wouldn't feel constrained by it. My advice would be to make these changes where you see fit, explaining the reason for the change in the edit summary. If that change is reverted, then engage the reverter in discussion, explain your reason concisely, be willing to listen to their reasoning as you would hope they would listen to yours, and hopefully come to an agreement. It's basically WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. Neıl ☎ 12:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The RfC has been pretty much discounted on *all* counts. All of the disputed edits were upheld. Again, it's an example where people assume some sort of plot. I gave a detailed response on the Talk page (a tad frustrated perhaps) that covers all the main points. Since then, the editor that brought the RfC has acknowledged that I am acting in good faith, and that my edits (while unpopular with certain editors) are sound.

There was no agreement to avoid changing mentions of British Isles (as an aside, I recall a discussion on this topic where it was rejected on the basis that there are no "special" terms in Wikipedia where permission is required before changing). I also agree that submitting change requests before some sort of committee if the changes involve the term "British Isles" would not work. Your advice is pretty much what I've been doing all along. It's only in the past couple of weeks that my edits have been wholesale blindly reverted by anon IP addresses. This is the first time that a registered user has engaged in the same behaviour, and I'll admit that I suspect a link. The anon IP addresses invariably were blocked for this exact behaviour.

In the absense of an admin willing to intervene, I'm pretty much left on my own, aren't I? I never engage in ad hominen attacks, and I always try to be open and explain as best I can. But on the other hand, TharkonColl's behaviour where he doesn't AGF, attacks the editor, can blindly revert (a total of 27 reverts so far, across 13 articles), doesn't engage in discussion, etc, is largely ignored? So what can I do. Edit war until he 3RRs? And the policy of 3RR is to stamp out this exact behaviour, not necessarily to wait until a 4th revert has taken place. Given that he has 3 reverts on 6 articles should be more than enough considering the circumstances. I'd rather not block him if there was an alternative, but what is the alternative? He isn't talking or discussing...just name calling and blind reverting. It's not the spirit of Wikipedia, that's for sure. --Bardcom (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not "wikistalking" in the sense of following this editor for the sake of it out of intent to annoy, WP:STALK, it's just that TharkunColl disagrees with an opinion that happens to be being spread by Bardcom over several articles. Merkin's mum 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, it's exactly that. It's following an editor, for the sake of it, reverting edits with no explanation, just to annoy. If he was a "righteous" editor that had some principals that conflicted with the edits, don't you think we'd have seen a sign by now? A discussion? A point? Anything? Also, I object to your statement of "an opinion that happens to being spread by Bardcom over several articles". I am not spreading an opinion, I am editting articles where the term "British Isles" is used incorrectly. Why is this seen as "spreading an opinion"? It's exactly that reasoning that results in not AGF.... --Bardcom (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask Bardcom if he has added the term British Isles to any article. Obvious candidates would be Lough Neagh (largest lake in), River Shannon (longest river in), and not forgetting Ireland (one of the two main islands of). Merely mentioning it in passing on a talk page, as with Lough Neagh, doesn't seem quite bold enough somehow, when compared with his repeated deletion of the term from other articles. In short, it is quite easy to form the opinion that his edits are driven by something other than a desire for strict accuracy across Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If TharkunColl decides that he wants to discuss anything, he only has to take up the 15 or so invitations I've left dotted around the various article pages, or he can start a conversation on my Talk page, or he can discuss individual edits on the article pages. Also, if TharkunColl decides that he wants to find articles to insert the term "British Isles" where it would be valid to do so, he is free to do so. And if the only argument that TharkunColl can find is that he can't find any articles where I've inserted the term (which is pretty weak), I think that it only highlights the fact that Google reports that more than half of all the references to the term "British Isles" comes from wikipedia itself - suggesting a possible over-exhuberance and over-enthusiasm in it's use here already without adding to it. --Bardcom (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"reverting edits with no explanation, just to annoy." I would ask you to assume good faith, Bardcom. My edits are not intended to annoy. If you wish to make such changes to articles, then in order to avoid reversion it's probably best to open a discussion on the talk page first. And I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked above, by the way. Have you added British Isles to any article? TharkunColl (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I always assume good faith Tharky, but if you read the context of the reply to Merkin properly, you will see that I was justifying the wikistalking title in terms used by Merkin first - these are not terms that I introduced or would have normally used.

So, if I read this right, you're asking me to submit changes in advance on the Talk Page? Funny, but I've done that on some articles where I feel it's required, and still been blindly reverted by anon IP editors....but you probably already knew that. --Bardcom (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not know that. Are you suggesting I might be connected with those anonymous IP addresses? If so then please feel free to have them checked out. Furthermore, your words above - "suggesting a possible over-exhuberance and over-enthusiasm in it's use here already without adding to it." - seem to imply very strongly that you do indeed think there's something wrong with the term. TharkunColl (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned you already knew that, because one of your reverts was after a discussion on the article Talk page - are you saying you were reverting without even checking article Talk pages? As to your connection with anon IP addresses, I suspect a link and I've made the reasons for my suspicion clear - it's because your behaviour mirrors previous anon IP behaviour. It is known from a conversation with one of the anon IP editors that they were deliberately not using their login, and were editting from a nearby hotel's IP address range. Your last attempt to once again assign a motive other than accuracy to my edits is tiring and transparent. I've made it clear (even check the RfC) that what prompted me to start looking at wikipedia usage of the term was Google reporting as it did. I've said on numerous occasions that I will follow Wikipedia consensus, and will apply the term correctly and appropriately. There is nothing wrong with the term "British Isles" in itself - just the manner in which it has been applied in certain articles. --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the particular edit to which you refer. As for the anonymous IP addresses, now that you have resolved your "suspicions" into a statement that comes very close to an accusation, your earlier criticism of me on my talk page for allegedly not assuming good faith rings very hollow indeed. I am not the anonymous editors to whom you refer, and I strongly suggest that you either (a) get the IPs checked out and/or (b) refrain from any further accusations. TharkunColl (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not possible to check out if there is a link, as the anon IP editor used a hotel's internet access. I've stated the reasons for my suspicions so that you or anybody else can understand why it is reasonable for me to be suspicious. It was (and is) not an accusation. I always assume good faith. I do believe that the different admin reactions are notable too. The anon IP editors were blocked for exactly the same type of blind-reverting behaviour, you haven't even been warned. I didn't think that Wikipedia had double standards for anon IP usage.... --Bardcom (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What you actually said above was a nearby hotel, and the chances are it isn't anywhere near me (assuming he or she wasn't lying about the hotel, of course). Be that as it may, I am not that person. As for having grounds for reasonable suspicion, how about my grounds for suspecting your motives with regards to the British Isles? If it's okay for you to voice such a serious accusation as sockpuppetry, then why is it wrong for me to point out the apparrent tendentiousness of your edits (on my own talk page)? TharkunColl (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB Backlog

Very sorry if this is in the wrong place but there is a backlog of applications on the AWB application page. Just wondered if one of the admins could take a trip over there and have a look and clear the backlog. Christopher140691 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have no idea why somebody should want to have the Average White Band as part of their wikilife, please could somebody else Pick Up the Pieces on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack from JzG

JzG and I have a long and contentious history, which is well documented, but I have made every effort to bury the hatchet. Now this from him, directed at me:

Fuck me, yet another obsessive pro-PRT WP:SPA pushing Malewicki's fantasy.

Now, believe me, the last thing I want to do is start another war with JzG, and that's why I've stayed clear of almost every debate involving him, including his RfC where dozens of editors have criticised his attitude. But I don't wish to be called obsessive either just because I expressed a differing opinion on a deletion debate (and in the process, provided 6 reliable sources to support my position).

Can someone please advise me what to do here? I've tried to detatch, but I don't believe I should have to sit back and take such attacks, especially since JzG has publicly said he will try to be more civil. ATren (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He just called me a troll... he's just like that, and the other admins are never going to do anything about it. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note these diffs on the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. In future, ATren, before coming straight to ANI it might be better if you at least try and discuss this with Guy on his talk page. I have asked Guy not to backslide into using the kind of language that caused his last RFC again, I have no idea if he will listen to me or not, but I have asked. Neıl ☎ 12:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not go to his talk page because of our long contentious history. I did not want to be accused of baiting him. ATren (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, apart from saying more fool you for believing anything Guy says - then, now and in the future - there is not much to do until ArbCom gets a calcium injection and concludes that allowing one or two "old school" charm dehanced drama warriors to continually erode the principles of consensus by discussion, and the importance of civility in interactions, does actually degrade the editing atmosphere and enact meaningful sanctions. Naturally, I expect only comments regarding my off-Wiki editing interests and other irrelevant factors as any response - if any. What else can you expect from Guy and others of the blunt axis?

Now, in response to Dan's query, I could go over to Guys page and post a polite level2 or 3 civility warning - no templates of course - but when it gets removed with an obscenity of exactly the type of which he has just been warned then I can't do anything... unless I want to be Tangoed. And don't you ever believe that Guy knows otherwise... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[the following was edit conflicted and written while LessHeard was composing his delightful assumption of ill faith, thanks, friend, it's always nice to be accused of duplicity]

The comment has nothing to do with ATren, as I would have said had he asked. The article SkyTran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is yet another fanwank for a non-existent form of PRT written by yet another WP:SPA with a totally uncritical view of the technology. Every single time Malewicki hawks his pipe dream to some new place, we get another set of edits serving to inflate something which has no objective existence whatsoever. TRhe reason Malewicki's pipe dream has not been sold to the cities to whom it has been pitched is not because Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV, it's because he hasn't even got to the prototype stage yet. It would be really good if a few editors who apply their critical faculties would edit these articles, but right now the only person weho touches anything to do with personal rapid transit and who has not drunk deep of the Kool-Aid is Ken Avidor, and he is so far off the opposite end of the scale as to be actively unhelpful. I am sick to death of articles promoting this fantasy world of a mass urban transit mode whose only implementation looks nothing like the pictures and serves an airport car park. We have a series of articles which amount to science fiction, and every attempt to make them anything else is resisted tooth and nail. That's why I don't go near it any more: the whole walled garden is edited by nothing but POV-pushers, so "consensus" will always be wholly uncritical. It's like homeopathy only worse, because in order for the dream to take shape they will first have to overcome the vested interests of the auto lobby, which will happen about three days after hell freezes over. So I'm sorry of ATren thought it was aimed at him, it was not. ATren and I have no dispute that I know of, we simply avoid each other because we don't get on.

Tobias, of course, I called him a troll because he inserted his highly unwelcome nose into a discussion on my talk page - trolling, in other words, according to the normal definition. I'm astounded at how sensitive he is about the word, given that he will fight to the death to protect the sacred right to link to vastly worse attacks on Wikipedians on his main site of interest. I believe I have worked out a Tobias Quotient which enables me to calculate how tenaciously he will advocate certain links or content; [Degree to which Tobias agrees with it] x [Extent to which it attacks other Wikipedians] / [Objective merit of the content]. As far as I am concerned Tobias is a dead loss in any discussion which even tangentially relates to attacks or harassment against Wikipedians (as that discussion did), because he has stated that he does not believe that harassment exists; it is not possible to have a rational debate when one party irrationally denies the premise for the debate even though it has been extensively demonstrated with numerous real and verifiable examples. I have been harassed to the extent of hang-up calls in the middle of the night, and harassment of Wikipedia editors varies from the relatively mild Wikistalking and trolling that Tobias engages in, to attempts to get people fired, to threats delivered to home addresses - why does the Foundation retain a security consultancy if this issue not exist? But of course we all know it does, apart from Tobias, who asserts that it does not and therefore no action to control it is permissible at all, and any attempts to control it must be stamped out at all costs because there is less than 100% agreement that harassment is a problem (and always will be as long as Tobias is around). If Tobias would unwatch my talk page and stop sticking his highly unwelcome hooter in, he would most likely never hear from me again. He chose to come along, I chose to actively disengage. I have nothing to say to Dan Tobias that the Wikipedia community wants to hear, and he has nothing to say that interests me in the slightest. He is well aware of this, and yet he still occasionally inserts himself into debates on my talk page, and then runs to teacher when the nasty man tells him to go away. A classic example of the phrase used by a friend of mine in his sig: "teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers". If growing a thicker skin is an appropriate recommendation for those who receive threatening emails and phone calls, as Tobias appears to believe, then it is surely an equally appropriate recommendation for people whose input is stated to be unwelcome in a discussion, especially when they knew full well in advance that it would be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

re SkyTran; um, who died and made you consensus overlord? - we have articles detailing the technology of Star Trek spaceships... There are degrees of bollocks within the pages of this encyclopedia, but most of us are fully capable of disengaging from those aspects we find unworthy and when we do encounter them are perfectly able to remain civil. Whatever you may think of a subject, or an individual, there is no recourse to your delightfully bull-headed attitude as regards what may be considered decent discourse, unless it is your intent to make the atmosphere uncomfortable for those which you do not care for. Of course, this is harassment, and not a epidermis strengthening program. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Guy says it was directed elsewhere and I take him at his word. In retrospect I should have gone to him first, but given our history and the fact that it appeared to be directed at me, I sought advice here first. I'm glad it's cleared up. With respect to PRT, we've always disagreed on that, and we always will (comparing PRT to Homeopathy? Seriously?)) so I'll just leave it at that. :-) Feel free to close this thread. ATren (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(canvass) Now that you have read this, go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#UniModal, read the comments there and !vote. We need a few more !voters --Enric Naval (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Kauymatty

Resolved

 – All blocked.

• Kauymatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauymatty4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauymatty5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauymatty6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably could go to AIV, but they can be picky about warnings and active edits. Original, 1, 2 are already blocked. 3-6 were created the same day. 3-4 aren't active, but 5-6 are currently vandalizing. Anyone have a moment to take care of these? Thanks, --Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All blocked. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

 – List cleared

Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)