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

Mccready topic ban

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.

Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban. Pseudoscience probation extended to one full year (from today). Block may be extended for likely abusive sockpuppeting, pending checkuser results. — Scientizzle 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Mccready (talk · contribs) has been placed under a topic ban and probation, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#Topic ban. He is banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for six months. He is under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring. Mccready has been notified.[1] Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested review

Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested a review of the above topic ban.[2] Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update. I have reset Mccready's block to one month for canvassing on this issue. I am not taking any action on a longer block or alterations to his topic ban until the conversation runs its course here. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Since his response to the topic ban reveals a lack of understanding of his wrongdoing and a lack of repentance, I suggest a longer topic ban, or an indef ban. Nothing he has said indicates that he will change in any way after the ban is lifted. He has no intention to reform. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the response I am referring to above:

• "WOW. This is a new low for wikipedia. A user proposes such a drastic action, then the same user closes the discussion before I have a chance to respond. Great. What of all the errors in the info presented? What of the obvious bias in those who expressed a view (overwhelmingly altmeders)? What of the ridiculous assertion that I don't contribute to discussion on acupuncture? Since when do edit summaries not count? What of the many editors said my info was accurate and highly germane, but merely not formatted correctly and should have been referenced in lead rather than included. I'd like a review and a chance to put my defence. This is ridiculous." Mccready [3]

• That response doesn't indicate any degree of understanding that can lead to improvement. -- Fyslee / talk 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Per Fyslee. Keep the ban, and extend to a year if there is additional disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Response. (This is posted on behalf of Mccready.[4][5]) I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. Mccready (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
  • Further response.[6] Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history.
    • Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me.
    • Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006
    • Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked)
    • Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised.
    • Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. Mccready (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by Vassyana (talk))
  • Comment: Notably, the above passage is by far the longest comment that Mccready has made on a talk page in many weeks if not months. During his most recent round of edit warring on Acupuncture, he reverted 15 times between April 3 and April 26 (see archived AN/I thread). In that same period of time, he made exactly zero contributions at Talk:Acupuncture (cf. page history) despite being invited to discuss. His typical explanation is that he has a slow internet connection and "doesn't have time to do detailed battle with believers". Yet he seems perfectly able to write at length when sanctions are imposed (see his talk page). A chronic problem editor with major blind spots, imo. (As for his criticisms of me, why is it that I manage to work just fine with other skeptical editors, like Orangemarlin and Eldereft and Fyslee?) --Jim Butler (t) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note Two points: first, it is transparently false that only "altmeders" have said Mccready does more harm than good. Second, FWIW, Mccready's assertion that I objected to material he added on cultural bias in acu research is incorrect. He added the material on 6 February 2008, to the lead (as he habitually does for new material, notwithstanding WP:LEAD). On 14 February 2008 I added the material to the appropriate section of the article (and expanded it a little). I've never objected to its inclusion. --Jim Butler (t) 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we as a community need to make a clear distinction between insistence on high quality references and POV-pushing of fringe sources. Mccready is without a doubt guilty of edit warring and generally showing an abrasive personality, but the value of the research argues for leniency. I think some quality time with WP:Dispute resolution or a posting to the fringe theories noticeboard might have saved some headache, but here we are. The disruptive behavior merits a ban. A 0RR on acupuncture and chiropractic might be considered some weeks or months hence if their confrontational editing style softens. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Mccready's positive contributions are good, but not unique, and are far outweighed by the negatives. On Cochrane Collaboration reviews, I restored a bunch on 5 February 2008 (the same ones Mccready would later go on to attempt to add to the lead section, redundantly and via edit warring: see 15(!!) diffs here). On cultural bias in research, Mccready added two good sources on 6 February 2008, however, I had likewise added refs on that subject on 11 January 2008. So, sure, he had made some good contributions, but they are not unique; other editors are equally capable of doing straightforward Cochrane and Pubmed searches. What most other editors do not do, as we know, is endlessly edit war and disrupt. That's why I believe that little of value will be lost via a topic ban, and a great deal of harm will be prevented. And I'm all for allowing him to contribute and improve his collaborative skills in other areas where his bias is not so intractable. --Jim Butler (t) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse increasing indef site ban There is canvassing afoot, I will disclose to another admin or an arb if this is disputed. I reccomend a longer topic ban. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering the user has no understanding of the term WP:CANVASS (subsequent activities to my first post) and that they've now insulted my reputation via email, I support an indef site ban. MBisanz ^talk 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Make the topic ban indefinite: The last time Mccready was topic-banned (in September 2006, by FloNight), he simply disappeared from WP for about a year (see contribution history) only to return with the exact same behavior pattern. He learned nothing from that ban, is impervious to advice, and is oblivious to the extent of his editorial misconduct. Some editors seem to be "incorrigible" in this way, and he is one of them. Make the topic ban indefinite. --Jim Butler (t) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note Further evidence of Mccready's misconduct can be found archived here, including evidence of edit-warring against 5 editors, disingenuousness (leaving a message on my talk page and then saying, just half an hour later, that I'd "ignored" it), and possible COI. --Jim Butler (t) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment When I see this, it makes me sad: "I don't contribute to discussion...? Since when do edit summaries not count?" I'm sick of seeing edit wars where both parties justify their actions using only their edit summaries. That, to me, is not contributing to discussion. It says to me that the author just doesn't get the wiki process. If there's a solution to this that allows Mccready to return to productive editing in this area, I think it has to start from that realisation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I've just declined Mccready's most recent unblock request as it continued to display bad faith and a complete disregard for consensus. Since he was blocked for bad faith and this discussion is still ongoing, it seems inappropriate to unblock him while he's still accusing others and we're still discussing his fate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For ease of reference: Mccready's unblock request.[7] Hersfold's decline.[8] My comment to Mccready, expressing healthy skepticism about his unfamiliarity with conduct rule.[9] Vassyana (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I originally tried a less harsh restriction, which didn't work out. I would suggest the topic ban be kept until such a time Mccready has demonstrated an understanding of the problems with his editing style, which have been explained to him by me and several others. henrik•talk 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments? Vassyana (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep topic ban From a review of the statements by the editor, posted by Vassuana, the thrust of Mccreadys request appears to be that everybody else is wrong, likely to be biased in action and interpretation, and that Mccready is the only purveyor of the truth. Under the circumstances I do not see how allowing this editor to return to an area of previous conflict is going to be anything but disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment; I agree with the above statement. In the two years since I left a comment on Mccready's talk page requesting that he not revert other editors without an explanation, it appears that he's been stubbornly slow to come around to a consensus-based approach to editing. I appreciate that the topic areas he works in can be contentious, but that doesn't excuse one from fully embracing how we do things around here. The block and the topic ban should remain in place so that Mccready can take some time to consider changing the behaviour that, as he's been repeatedly told by many editors, is not productive or particularly welcome. -/- Warren 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am leaving a message on Mccready's talk page to see if he has any further or changed response based on the feedback in this discussion. Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• And sockpuppetry too Now Mccready is using an IP address to revert the lead section of acupuncture back to his preferred version (notice how the particular paragraph that the IP changed, in grey, is identical between the IP's version and Mccready's earlier one). (Note also that this edit ignores extensive discussion on talk [10][11].) The IP, Special:Contributions/203.102.44.230, has previously edited Chiropractic, including an episode in September 2006 when Mccready's first topic ban was about to begin. The IP is based in New South Wales, Australia, which is where Mccready lives according to the link on his user page. Pretty clearly it's him per WP:DUCK (except, as we know, this particular duck accuses everyone else of quackery). Based on this editor's escalating disregard for WP policy, I think an indefinite site ban (or at least an indef pseudoscience topic ban) may be called for. --Jim Butler (t) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Vintagekits, part 5

Unresolved

 – Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vintagekits. D.M.N. (talk)

Please note that this move is being bold. This thread was heading towards 100k, and I feel as a result it should be moved to a new location. Please keep all discussion centralized there for consistency. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AndalusianNaugahyde's sock accounts

I noticed the unblock of Doctorfluffy who was confirmed per checkuser to be editing on the same IP as AndalusianNaugahyde and Pilotbob. Whether or not these accounts stopped editing in the same AfDs as they did prior to whatever agreement that allowed for them to be unblocked and as seen here (at least 40 AfDs in which they both "voted"). I think the community should please re-examine their edits and status, which as you can see are very similar deletion-only edits in a rather meatpuppet like manner:

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

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

So, same IP and same ongoing area and pattern of participation, i.e. just going down the list of AfD and saying to delete practically everthing with a few extremely rare keeps seems rather fishy and they also write with a similar writing style. Plus, I see continued evidence of Doctorfluffy not really being a serious editor. Please notice his signature in AfDs last night and this morning: [12] and [13]. For user talk, notice he has "User talk:Doctorfluffy|fart in my face". I'm all for humor, but we're writing an encyclopedia, not a joke book.

Thus, his claim that he has a "mission" to delete articles continues with little to no actual article improvement and the silliness/immaturity of his "list of pages to masturbate to" also continues in his signature. See here for when his user page had the "mission" and "masturbate" stuff on it.

Here are all the confirmed/suspected socks/meatpuppets' blocks in order of account creation, which is why I named this thread after the first account on the below list):

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

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

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

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

• Doctorfluffytemp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Doctorfluffytemp3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Doctorfluffytemp4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Doctorfluffytemp5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, again, a confirmed checkuser, a block to Pilotbob for disruptive AfD participation prior to the checkuser results, and blatant block evasion by Doctofluffy.

Please note as well that Doctorfluffy also states on his talk page: "I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia". First, AfD is not a vote. Second, somehow, having a "mission" or "goal" seems to have a WP:POINT and one that does not allow for compromises with other editors.

I think that they are if not socks then meatpuppets, i.e. per Doctorfluffy's admission that he has a "mission" to delete stuff, both accounts are just focusing on deletion. While I may be an inclusionist, I absolutely argue to delete more than either Pilotbob or Doctorfluffy argues to keep and I have helped identify sock accounts that create articles that need to be deleted as I did at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Ramos Jr, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markael James. Please also note that in this unfinished table in which I haven't even yet listed all the times I've argued to delete, I do in fact argue to delete more than in just token instances: User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. I do not see as much objectivity from either Pilotbob or Doctorfluffy.

Doctorfluffy was unblocked on 13 November 2007. Here are some his problematic edits since then:

• Poor language in edit summaries: [14], [15], [16]

• No idea what to make of this one: [17]

• Assumptions of bad faith: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

• Incivility: [23], [24]

• Telling others what to do: [25], [26]

• WP:HOPELESS “votes“ in AfDs: [27]

• WP:PERNOM “votes“ in AfDs: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]

• Not notable “votes” in AfDs: [92], [93], [94], [95]

• Use of “cruft”: [96]

• Copy and paste assertions that articles “fail” some policy with no evidence or actual argument of how the articles allegedly fail the policy in question: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]

• Incredibly rapid copy and paste posts in multiple AfDs (some in under a minute):
  • 15:32, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Tarawa (2nd nomination)‎ (→TCS Tarawa: del)
  • 15:31, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Confederation (2nd nomination)‎ (delete)
  • 15:31, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Concordia (2nd nomination)‎ (→TCS Concordia: delete)

• I did not identify ANY instances in which he (editor who called me a “fanatical inclusionist,” even though I have argued to delete well over a dozen times) argued to keep in his edit history; it’s possible I missed one, but it’s unlikely.

• No evidence of article improvement efforts.

What I see are two problems:

1. Lack of seriousness/maturity: Doctorfluffy had a section on his userpage listing "good pages to masturbate to", has "fart in my face" in his user signature, uses expressions like "lulz", etc. Even those like myself who have made positive gestures toward this editor as I did here and here, have not been respected in kind as he has indicated here.

2. If not sock, then meatpuppetry: Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy were confirmed per checkuser to be on the same IP after they voted in about 40 of the same AfDs; Doctorfluffy has stated that it is his "mission" and "goal" (which is a bit disconcerting as it sounds almost fanatical if not uncompromising) to delete articles; both Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy's edit histories are essentially to just nominate and vote to delete as many articles as possible. So, even if they stopped participating in the same discussions, their editing pattern and writing style remains strikingly similar and they seem to disagree with/criticize the same editors as well. Given that, I think it a reasonable conclusion that they are coordinating their efforts off-wiki. After all, even the admin who unblocked said after unblocking: "There was no exoneration of sockpuppetry. The CU results show a strong correlation between these IDs. It is just possible, yes, but very implausible, that they are different people. There was also no exoneration of meatpuppetry, the contrib history shows correlation, and there is admitted real life discussion (either there really was discussion between two closely associated people, or it was a sham discussion, doesn't matter which, same outcome)."

Thus, I really believe that the original suspicion of he and Pilotbob editing as sock or meatpuppets is confirmed by the accounts' subsequent editing habits, even if they avoided the same AfDs after initially supporting each other in roughly forty AfDs, and are in fact continuing to make disruptive pointed nominations and "votes" with immaturity or lack of seriousness as well. Therefore, I strongly urge and politely request that we reconisder their unblock status as there is little evidence that these accounts are really contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins take note, please. I think Roi makes a case worthy of examination. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

a relatively minor point, but I just asked Doctorfluffy to change his sig. Let's see if he cooperates. DGG (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Roi brought this here at my urging, after he communicated with me privately (I am the unblocking admin, and I ran some checks at the time as well). I haven't done the research Roi did... all I did was do some spot checking of contribs looking for violations of the unblock agreement. I did not spot any such (although I may have missed some), and thus I would not say a reblock based on violation of the agreement is necessarily warranted. But Roi raises some serious concerns... I think it's a valid question to ask ourselves, again... is this user (if these are socks) or users (if these are editors editing from the same location) here to help build the encyclopedia? Is a contribution history that consists only or primarily of deletion activities nevertheless a valid one? I don't know the answer to that. If consensus is to block at this point I'm fine with that. A side note, all of the "temps" are acknowledged socks of Doctorfluffy, he said he was using them to comment on his case. That's a technical violation, yes, but it is in the past. I have retained the information on the checks I ran at the time, if other CUs want to consult it, please contact me. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I don't believe that I have violated the agreement we made. Le Grand is drawing a lot of what he says from old edits and edits to my namespace, and his examples of incivility are a stretch. My conduct in AFDs has been similar to other editors, many people make WP:ATA !votes and is it not a violation of any policy to do so. I wasn't aware that editting Wikipedia required me to be "serious" all the time, nor should I penalized by the way my userpage looked 8 months ago. I've done some limited work on the main space as well, including some vandal reverting and other minor changes. Ultimately, I think Le Grand is dragging up the issue of sockpuppetry, which has been resolved satisfactorily for some time now, simply to strengthen his otherwise limited case against me. Not that it should matter, but Naugahyde doesn't edit anymore - he was soured from the fiasco last November and didn't even pursue the agreement you offered myself and Pilotbob - and Pilotbob hasn't really editted in months either. Nonetheless, per your fair treatment during our last encounter you earned my respect and I will accept whatever determination you make regarding my conduct. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I show old examples to demonstrate a consistent pattern of unconstructive edits since your unblock in November, i.e. that it has been going on for months now. As far as the comments on your userpage being months old, i.e. when you said it's your "mission" to delete, the deletion only "votes" in AfDs demonstrate that you have apparently continued that "mission" in that you have never argued to keep anything unless I somehow overlooked an example. Yes, I am an inclusionist, but I have argued to delete many articles (I've even nominated some), which shows that I have clear standards for inclusion and exclusion. Only arguing to delete does not reveal such standards. Those who build up articles, but ocassionally argue to delete can say, "Well, you see from what I created what I think is worthwhile on Wikipedia." Saying "others do it to" with regards to all of the "per nom" and other weak arguments to avoid doesn't make doing it okay, especially when in your case, you ONLY argues to delete and have in various instances made pointed expressions about your motivations in that regard. It's one thing if every once in a while someone has a "per nom" vote rather than argument, but it's another thing when in Doctorfluffy's case it's scores of them and in such rapid succession that it's not likely anyone could have really read through the articles under question and preceding comments in the AfD, especially given the instances of posting verbatim rationales in multiple AfDs sometimes in under a minute. Finally, I think some of the sporadic gaps in Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy's editing, i.e. one was editing while the other stopped, could actually lend greater credence to them being the same person, i.e. focusing on one account at a time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: For those who might not be familiar with me, here is a list of contributions I've made in the past few months, minus those from the last two days when I decided to start participating in AFDs more actively again. It's mainly vandal reverting, removing of promotional links, spacing/formatting, typos, and tagging - all valid, constructive ways to help Wikipedia. I also went out of my way to thank one user on their talk page for their contributions to a subject I'm interested in, and someone even commented on my keen removal of spam from an article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the unconstructive edits outweigh the positive ones. Declaring a "mission" and "goal" to delete articles and then stating that you do not intend to argue to keep any and then having an overwhelming number of AfDs in which you have copy and paste or "per nom" votes rather than arguments does not really help as it is in effect an agenda. Moreover, as regards here, what does such a signature add? It distracts from a serious discussion (and again, there are times where wit and humor are fine), but "toilet humor"? And again coupled with the "good pages to masturbate to" section on the old userpage, it just seems a trend. And the problems I raise seem similar to those raised against Pilotbob also after the November unblock agreement. Pilotbob's last edits concerned a deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, which has the similar false claims of no sources existing and the topic in question being not notable, when with relative ease I and others were able to demonstrate otherwise. It gets old in AfDs when they are declared to have no sources in existence only to have some of us find sources. Thus, the time/effort spent attempting to delete the page could have more constructively be spent finding the sources and expanding the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that in some office somewhere there are three people who share very similar if not identical views and editing patterns. It is almost like a competition to remove material. OK, what happens now? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of sockpuppetry was resolved over 6 months ago. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really as the unblocking admin clearly stated: "There was no exoneration of sockpuppetry. The CU results show a strong correlation between these IDs. It is just possible, yes, but very implausible, that they are different people. There was also no exoneration of meatpuppetry, the contrib history shows correlation, and there is admitted real life discussion (either there really was discussion between two closely associated people, or it was a sham discussion, doesn't matter which, same outcome)." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an outside observer - a quick check shows that Pilotbob has not edited since February and AndalusianNaugahyde has not edited since November. All the remaining points raised by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles amount to "I don't like the way this user participates in Articles for Deletion". "Per nom" and "not notable" are completely acceptable arguments on AFD with longstanding use. This looks (to me anyway) to be a frivolous complaint based solely on a user's "deletionism" and reflective of an astonishing lack of Assumption of Good Faith on the part of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, off base. Doctorfluffy has about 70 times where he just put "per nom" in AfD and a whole bunch of other "nnotable" or "fails X" votes rather than arguments. Consensus is that these are not arguments, but votes. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Moreover, there are multiple instances of using "shit" or "fuck" in edit summaries. He created a userspace page of his that he kept redirecting to images of real human penises. Some instances of assuming bad faith as well have also been diffed above. The crux is that he was confirmed as a sock account; even when Lar unblocked him Lar said he does not necessarily believe Doctorfluffy and Pilotbob are not sock accounts, Doctorfluffy has NEVER (not even once as far as I could identify) argued to keep an article, and he has multiple instances of "votes" in under a minute (I gave one example of three copy and paste rationales in a row in under two minutes). The most edits he ever made to a mainspace page were 8. Thus, like Pilotbob, since November 2007, the balance of Doctorfluffy's contributions have been pointed efforts (remember it's his "mission" and "goal") to delete as many articles as possible with some other disturbing edits worked in, which incidentally is a pattern also shared by KleenupKrew, who also seems to have a pointed participation with regards to AFDs as evidenced by the username and various versions of his userpage (see [116] and [117]. Considering that his AfD contributions are mostly ones that fall on the arguments to avoid essay and have no balance whatsoever (he outright said on his talk page, he won't ever argue to keep), I honestly believe that these accounts are not really here to contribute construcitively and should be blocked idefinitely. They were given a chance to contribute constructively and while perhaps avoiding double-voting in AfDs have nevertheless exhibited other persistent problem edits. Having a "mission" to just want to delete articles is not conducive to consensus building and compromising. If I as an inclusionist am nevertheless willing to argue to delete numerous articles or be persuaded to change my mind and even support more deletionist candidates in RfAs, then it is imperative that all of us can exhibit such openness in order to really reach consensus on matters. Coming to AfD with the sole intent of only being interested in deleting the articles under question, regardless of what anyone says or will say is not helpful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A per nom response to an AFD is not generally acceptable per WP:PERNOM. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and should be ignored by the closing admin. A bit like, let me think ... oh yes, WP:ITSNOTABLE, for example. Black Kite 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM is part of an essay, which has no standing as Wikipedia policy. Even so, the linked essay specifically states that "per nom" is acceptable when the nominator has spelled out sufficient reasons for deleting or keeping, and there is nothing substantial to add. Its use in AFD discussions is so common and accepted that use of "per nom" in deletion discussions is neither a sufficient, nor legitimate, reason to claim somebody is not a good faith editor. It should probably be removed from the "arguments to avoid" essay altogether. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not acceptable when it is used scores of time in rapid fashion by someone who has outright said he is unwilling to ever argue to keep anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GRDC, much as you know I like you, PERNOM is exactly the same as your many votes that go "Keep as consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on XXX" which is basically just WP:ITSNOTABLE. I really wish you wouldn't keep putting those into AfDs, you know - you're capable of making really good arguments, and that type just strikes me as something you've thrown in when you can't think of any other reason to Keep. Black Kite 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more or less why we're here. Le Grand and I have practically opposite philosophies regarding inclusion and he doesn't like that I have given up on trying to sway him in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that I also argue to delete on occasion as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and I make all sorts of other contributions from welcoming new users to uploading photographs I took. Doctorfluffy is a single-purpose deletion account that even the unblocking admin admits is in all likelihood some kind of sock or meatpuppet who has also exhbited other disconcerting behavior. And for the articles I argue to keep, I usually also spend time working to improve the articles in question so my contributions to that process actually extends beyond even what I say in the AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you do - which is why those types of Keep votes usually seem completely pointless to me. A closing admin will (or at least should) ignore them just as they will probably skip over mechanical pernom votes. Black Kite 18:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing a policy, i.e. the First pillar, with an example that required actually looking for a source, i.e. a published specialized encyclopedia should never be ignored (doing so would actually be irresponsible of an admin) and is not justifiably comparable with mechanical pernom votes from accounts that not only never argue to keep, but that are associated with sock accounts, and that have expressed a single purpose and uncompromising and non consensus forming agenda to only focus on deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. 5P isn't a "catch-all" policy that says everything is notable - seriously, it's not - you can't just quote it as a reason for Keep if an article fails other policies badly, which is sometimes what you're doing. Black Kite 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I can in the context of larger arguments and I only say that for articles that pass other polciies quite well. Anyway, please do not sidetrack the discussion. We are talking about particular accounts, specifically Doctorfluffy, that had been confirmed per checkuser to be the same as several other editors and even when unblocked was NOT exonerated. Moreover, while they may have avoided the same AfDs, the accounts exhibited the same pattern and style of edits, which just further suggests working together for the same end. We are talking about on account that has a history of not approaching Wikipedia seriously (having a list of pages to masturbate to on his userpage, having strange userspace redirects to images of penises, having "fart in my face" in his signature and then not understanding what's wrong with it, etc.), expressing at various times that it is his "mission" and "goal" to delete articles and that he is unwilling to argue to keep articles. Please do not lose focus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can continue this elsewhere. Black Kite 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Genuinely curious, GRDC: can you point out an example of where you have voted to delete an article at AFD? As often as I run into you there, I can't remember you making an argument for deletion of any article.Kww (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the most recent instances in which I argued to delete articles include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Ramos Jr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markael James. In regards to those, please also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen at least two. In one case someone joked that a new precedent had been set (WP:PUMPKINGKING or some such) that when Grand Roi votes delete, you know it's over. So it's memorable, but it does happen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Cordisco. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

stepping back a bit

(and starting a subheader, this is getting rather long) A few points here... in my view while the sockpuppetry allegations were not "dismissed" or "overturned", they are not relevant unless a clear pattern of abuse of the unblock agreement is shown. To do that, it needs to be shown that Doctorfluffy and other editors likely to be socks or meatpuppets have been editing in contravention of the sock policy. If that cannot be shown, then there is not a reason to block based on violation of the unblock agreement. In my checks (and I just carried out more) I'm not seeing that. I may have overlooked something, if so, I welcome correction. But absent that, I think Roi and everyone else should drop that aspect of this... it's in the past... and just focus on the question of whether this editor is exhibiting problematic behaviour.

I confess I'm ambivalent... this editor is here for one specific purpose. He has made some offsetting edits, sure, but by and large, the mission he's on is to suggest and support the deletion of articles that are eligible for deletion. Has someone carried out an exhaustive analysis of his comments to see how often he is on the side that carries the day (that is, that the article does get deleted)? If some significant fraction of his participation is of that nature, and especially if the noms he makes usually carry, then I would argue that, like it or not, he's not doing things that violate policy. (rather, he's doing useful work... we WANT to see things that don't belong here removed, after all) It is not a policy violation to focus on one aspect of work here, for if it were, than those that confine their edits to, say, 19th century women to the exclusion of 20th century men, for example, would be subject to sanction. Similarly, those that confine their edits to vandal reversion, or to identifying bad images, or what have you are also not subject to sanction for narrow focus. That this editor has a strong opinion about cruft is in and of not itself actionable. That he always argues in favour of deletion, is not in and of itself actionable, unless the arguments are disruptive (because they are not valid ones). That he uses short hand arguments like "per nom" is not, in my view actionable either. I say per nom all the time. It merely means "I agree with the nominator, the arguments are in my view valid"... it may not count for much when determining strength of argument but it's not a bad statement)

In short, after looking at what's been presented here I'm not seeing a case for a ban. Some counseling about being more collegial, perhaps? Sure. Some suggestions to put a bit more analysis into some of the delete comments? Sure. Some suggestion that it might be more enriching to broaden the area of interest, perhaps? Sure. But I'm not seeing an outright ban merited at this point. I may be overlooking things but that's my view at this time. I'm an inclusionist by and large (except when it comes to marginal BLPs) and I don't like people who mock or disparage or are monomaniacal in focus, but absent a rules violation here, you don't have to LIKE an editor to say there is no cause for banning. Again, I may have missed something. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's sufficient evidence though that even if he/they did not subsequently participate in the same AfDs, that Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy are nevertheless the same editor. If one of the two accounts is blocked and he is limited to one account, then okay, but others have also indicated above that they don't buy the two people with identical editing patterns and focus on the same IP claim. The problem with having a single purpose is that nowhere do I see any evidence of being open-minded to change his stance when an article is improved during an AfD. And the problem with the "per noms" are that they are just rapid-fire down many AfDs in such a manner that it is really, really unlikely anyone could have read through the article, read all the comments, and checked for sources to be sure that what others posted is indeed accurate. I have participated in a number of AfDs with a claim that no sources can be found in the nomination followed by rapid "per nom" delete votes only to look for sources myself and sure enough they do exist, which leads me and maybe others to improve the article, and still have those who voted to delete per nom never return to the discussion or acknowledge the improvements. Sometimes this occurs at the end of an AfD, which looks like a bunch of per nom snow that on the surface may overwhelm the last edit or two arguing to keep that improved the article under question. Plus, it is really helpful in understanding someone's knowledge of policy by seeing them create and expand articles. If someone ONLY wants to delete articles, then how do we know what does meet his or her inclusion criteria? I make no claim that I am not an inclusionist, but even today I nominated articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Creed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele), which demonstrates that I certainly do not think everything belongs on Wikipedia and that there is indeed valid work done in deleting articles and I've even included editors with deletionist userboxes on my list of nice wikipedians. Thus, I suppose it would just be helpful to see the same openness from other editors. I am not opposed to your suggestion that he seek coaching for a neutral party, perhaps through the adopt a user program. Thus, perhaps a compromise solution would be sticking to one account with the others blocked and seeking mentorship? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock policy does not prevent use of multiple accounts entirely. It prevents use of multiple accounts to influence consensus or to otherwise deceive. No evidence of such deception subsequent to the unblock has been presented. I think you should really let that part go, absent such evidence. As for singlemindedness... if I tell you that I am adamantly opposed to X and whenever I get a chance my efforts regarding matters related to X are to get X changed, does that make me blockable? I don't think so. Really, I think you should let this go, or present clear evidence of actual disruption. If 39 out of 44 nominations checked "resulted in either deletion or redirection" that is not evidence of disruption, it's evidence that this user has a good eye in spotting things that need to go. We can use all the help we can get, of whatever sort. I'm not seeing a consensus developing here to block this user, nor do I think it likely. That said I do want to commend you for your diligence and concern, Roi. Even if I think you're wrong in this case, being concerned about this sort of thing and bringing it forward is something to be encouraged as well. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think the lack of seriousness, the sockpuppetry, the single purpose, etc. all adds up. Anyway, I appreciate your commendation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, AFDs that I created are listed on my user page. 39 of 44 resulted in either deletion or redirection. I'm not going to swim through the 100's of AFDs in my contribs history, but I am very rarely the only person arguing for deletion. In other words, I don't make pointy controversial votes, nor do I ever vote against everyone else simply to be disruptive.

I avoid participating in AFDs where I would vote keep. I think I have a nicely worded explanation somewhere in my talk archives for this, but it boils down to that I have limited time and I'd rather work to see poor content removed.

I have been trying to participate in other areas, including formatting, vandal reverting, and spam removal. Please see my link near the top of this thread.

I fully believe that what I do here is helping the project and that my conduct is perfectly acceptable. I admit that sometimes I get frustrated in AFD debates and perhaps come off as condescending, but I always remain civil and I do not attack other editors. Looking closely at the examples of bad faith, incivility, and "telling others to do" provided by Le Grand above, I see no problem with any of those edits. It is not bad faith to ask users if they are familiar with policy or to articulate their arguments further. It is entirely reasonable to point out suspected sockpuppetry and, in fact, in the diff above, those users were actually banned IIRC. Stating to another user that you do not wish to start a discussion with them is not incivil, and "bringing the lulz" is hardly an insult.

I think Le Grand is grasping at straws here, hoping to drudge up the sockpuppetry incident all over again since he has very little of a case against me otherwise. Further, I believe he is only doing this because he doesn't like that I don't agree with many of rationales in AFDs and that, since my attempts to persuade him in the past were met with overwhelming inclusionist doctrine and broad misapplication of policies, I generally will no longer engage him in direct discussion. Other editors above me in this very thread are also complaining about his conduct in AFDs. He is making massive assumptions of bad faith and this thread is simply an attempt to get me banned because he doesn't like me. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying it is your "mission" is pointy as is rapidly voting in under a minute. If you are unwilling to ever argue to keep articles, then you have no place calling others "extreme inclusionists". If you do not see problems with your examples of assuming bad faith and incivility, then that too is problematics. The sockpuppet incident is a concern, because if as many suspect and has essentially been confirmed by checkuser you are also Pilotbob, then you should be limited to one account. No one else who is a neutral editor complains about me and AfDs are discussions, not votes, so those who approach it as votes, especially those who want to just rapidly post a "per nom" in as many AfDs as possible, or who are unable to back up their arguments are naturally going to be miffed when others engage them in actual discussion. As indicated the other who supported you above has a similar single-purpose deletion only modus operandi to you. I do not "not like" anyone here and nor would that be a reason why I would want someone banned. I do have a concern when I see a clear lack of seriousness, clear evidence of inadequately addressed sockpuppetry, and an uncompromising objective to seemingly never want to keep anything. Plus, I have said that I am not opposed to you being limited to one account and your seeking mentorship. Nor would i totally condemn you if I saw improved maturity/seriousness and more openmindness. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pumpkin, you are being WP:POINTy - in keeping with your idiosyncratic brand of what constitutes reasonable participation in AfD and your penchant for incessant comment against the arguments of those who disagree with you in a manner calculated to irritate (e.g. through unsustainable reference to the pillars). You hold extreme inclusionist views and while that is certainly your right, the self-appointed probity to judge the value of others' contributions is wide of the mark, disruptive, borderline rude in its application, and likely makes it only a matter of time before an WP:RFC is filed against you. Sockpuppetry is a problem and I am sure everyone is glad that you are being vigilant. But this seems like fishing for sanction against editors who disagree with you: citing WP:PERNOM (and as you know we are working on changing the wording to reflect actual practice) or !voting quickly is not a matter for WP:AN\I. Eusebeus (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Given that you also make pointed/extreme deletionist AfD "votes" (you outright said you would proxy for TTN and that you are not here to create articles) and judge others as well in not even borderline, but outright rude and disruptive manners, you are not really in much position to legitimately criticize me. Consider:

• Assuming bad faith: [118], [119], [120], [121]
• Incivility: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]
• Dramatizing: [128], [129], [130], [131], [132]
• Use of obscenity in edit summary: [133]
• Not signing post, using per nom/nnotable arguments to avoid in AfD: [134]
• More episode redirects a la TTN fashion: [135], [136], [137], [138]
• Please remember this thread and this thread

• While I have extended efforts to actually be nice to or make things betters with you, you have made no such efforts or extended any such courtesy to me. So, unless if those who call me an "extreme inclusionist" actually argue to keep as often as I argue to delete or make the efforts I at least try to make to ease tensions, I cannot take such claims against me as valid. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well that's a bloody disturbing reply what with all the manic OCD it suggests, and I think it largely confirms my point that you are a victim of your own blind rectitude (at best!) - especially given some of the diffs you "cite" in this pointless (or is it pointy) effort to denigrate my contribution record. You are seriously getting out of hand Pumpkin and something needs be done. Eusebeus (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now now, no swearing (oh hang on I'm bloody Australian), Eusebeus, you could have been nicer when he tried to help out on that medieval something-or-other. (rectitude...sounds like rectum...funny...). Sorry, I find it hard to take all this seriously anymore......we all need to lighten up.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctant to comment on this one, but I think we need to take language such as "Well that's a bloody disturbing reply what with all the manic OCD it suggest" seriously. Were I not previously involved with some of these editors, I would block for that. DGG (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we close this one off. I'm not seeing a consensus to block, or a consensus for any other particular administrative action, developing and I think this has played out. ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Prison IP vandalism or threat?

{{resolved|Likely vandalism, RBI}}

Unresolved

 – BoP notified, but I still think someone ought to contact the person referenced in the edit.

Okay this is probably just somebody being a nuisance but what makes it moderately scary is that this IP comes from a prison. The diff is vandalism because the David Sobel article is about an "education writer" not the lawyer from Tulsa or his daughter. I checked and yeah there actually is a lawyer from Tulsa called David Sobel - and that's what's worrying.

This IP (User:206.138.130.3) has a litany of final warnings for vandalism - the latest issued by myself at 19:42 (UTC) on Friday (may 2nd)[139]. The edit in question was made about an hour later. This IP also has a previous final warning from April 28th that was ignored by this user and has not been acted upon. I was going to report to AIV but since it may or may not be a threat I thought more eyes would be helpful--Cailil ^talk 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand; what is the problem? Rudget (Help?) 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could be over reacting but this IP belongs to the Federal bureau of Prisons and the person using it made a post about the daughter of a lawyer. I could be putting 1 & 1 together and getting 11 but this looks "ify" to me--Cailil ^talk 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is a government agency that administers federal prisons, not a prison itself. —Travis^talk 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's likely a prison: Today, the Bureau consists of more than 114 institutions... The Bureau is responsible for the custody and care of approximately 201,000 Federal offenders. Approximately 85 percent of these inmates are confined in Bureau-operated correctional facilities or detention centers[140]. I think oversight is called for here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is highly unlikely that it is a prison. The IP resolves to Washington, DC, the the land of federal agencies. In any case, oversighting the comment by the IP, “David Sobel is also a lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Father of Amanda Sobel. the sweetest girl I've ever know,” seems to be overkill. —Travis^talk 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said I might have over reacted - but if you're sure there's nothing sinister here what about the fact that the IP has ignored two final warnings?--Cailil ^talk 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP winds up at bop.gw.customer.alter.net. Following this, "gw" could be a two letter code for their prison facility in Gilmer, West Virginia. I wouldn't be startled if the billing info for a national network service pointed to Washington DC. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about network naming and addressing, the fact that gw is between bop and customer makes me think that it stands for the BOP gateway from AlterNet. —Travis^talk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could easily mean gateway. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a (possible) prisoner vandalising any different to a normal shared IP? Just revert, warn/block and leave it. There was nothing threatening about it...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the worry is WP:BLP. It could be a taunt that someone is aware of the true name of a family member. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Dendodge if I was a lawyer and a "(possible) prisoner" was making strange posts about my daughter I'd be concerned. But as I said I might have watched one too many episodes of the Sopranos and am over reacting. Not sure that we need to go to oversight though--Cailil ^talk 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One last comment then, only for more context, looking at the IP's posts, they seem to be feminist-related. gw could also stand for a "satellite" women's camp at Greenville, Illinois. [141] Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:RBI, can we again mark this as resolved? —Travis^talk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking (and for your patience). Since I now think this could easily be someone killing time on a prison Internet connection at a women's prison, yes, I think we can mark it as resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it Travis and sorry if I over-reacted by posting here--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RBI except for the fact that no one did step 2, apparently. Enigma ^message 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given it's a shared IP and has settled down for now, maybe the block won't be needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... I do think it is at least plausible that the edit was made from a prison, and, even if it's not, this would still be something the Bureau of Prisons ought to be notified about. Since no-one participating in this discussion seems to have actually done that, I've just fired off an e-mail to info#bop.gov (munged to avoid spambots). I think it would also be a good idea to notify David Sobel of Tulsa, Oklahoma himself, but I haven't been able to find any contact info beyond the address and phone number(s) on this page, and I'm somewhat reluctant to start making transatlantic phone calls to random attorneys myself. Could someone closer by maybe handle this? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Ilmari Karonen. I too thought it was an "ify" one but I'm unsure whether it is as Travis thinks just a run of the mill nuisance or something more sinister. Like you, I can't be making transatlantic phone-calls so perhaps somebody in that region should look at doing that. Even if it isn't harassment by a prisoner the BOP's Ip is being abused by someone so notifying them was, IMHO, a good idea. I've never notified a server admin about IP abuse so I wasn't sure how to go about doing that.

And BTW I think the fact that this has been a vandal only account for months and has ignored a number of final warnings should be addressed - if not now when it vandalizes another page--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 6 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 [142][143])
• Team tag reversion in an edit war with an IP editor, on Cut to the chase, with Runcorn and LondonEye [144];
• Consensus stacking at Talk:Rosemary Tonks (with Brownlee [145] - 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. — iridescent 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 nothign 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?[146] 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.[147] 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 doesnt 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 seperate 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. WjBscribe 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. — iridescent 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)

• 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... WjBscribe 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 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)

User:Smsarmad

Despite warnings, User:Smsarmad has been changing the denomination from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam in many articles on Pakistani politicians, and did so a few weeks ago using this anon. He first started removing the "Shi'a" part, then started replacing it with "Sunni". See this, this and the history pages of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Ayub Khan. He has decided to ignore the warnings and continue to impose his POV on these articles. See also WWGB who has been doing the same thing to these articles by removing references to "Shi'a Islam". LahoreKid (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I see a content dispute, and I don't think most admins are familiar enough with the subject to even begin making comment about which reference is more reliable. I suggest that you take the matter to the Pakistan WikiProject for some third party opinion. I would also suggest that people ignore the sectarian rhetoric being bandied about (by ip accounts generally). There is nothing that admins can do in this instance, I fear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have got nowhere in my efforts to resolve this matter. Again this is a matter of possible sectarian pov editing, and the complainant contends that the majority of persons editing the Pakistan related articles and belonging to the Pakistan WikiProject are both Sunni Moslems and also unreliable in matters relating to the sect of article subjects. While this is a disappointing attitude I regret that I cannot dismiss this possibility out of hand - there unfortunately being precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia - and I am looking for opinions on how to progress this matter. Generally, I am looking for authoritive sources relating to various Moslem/Pakistani subjects in the matter of which sect they belonged to. Can anyone point me to one, or confirm that WikiProject Pakistan is populated with trustworthy editors (no matter their particulars of belief.) Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why I wasn't contacted after a discussion was started on me, even an administrator(a responsible person) is also involved in the discussion here. First thing please do see my edits at the article pages mentioned by the complainant, one can see that I even tried to add neutrality to the articles which was again reverted by the complainant. Secondly it is clearly a racist comment by the complaining editor that WikiProject Pakistan has majority of Sunni Muslims(an OR by complainant and that too a wrong one), can someone ask him that where did he find that majority of members of the project belong to the opposite sect to his. Here are some lists that may be useful for you Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Members, Category:WikiProject Pakistan Members, Category:Pakistani Wikipedians. Other thing is that whenever the disputed articles are vandalized the complainant thinks that it is being done by me and unreasonably put blames on me(like this and this and I can't accept that so please make a Check User case and ask him not to blame me unless check user confirms. --SMS ^Talk 04:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't contact you because I tried to resolve the matter of the basis of the alleged vandalism via the complainant - I was unable to take the accusation of bias at face value (simply because I am not familiar enough with the subjects) and I wanted there to be a definitive answer before I started contacting people and start trying to sort things out. If you believe that WikiProject Pakistan is sufficiently neutral to deal with this matter then I would gladly leave it to the Project. As I said right at the beginning, this is not a matter for admin intervention unless it can be established that there is vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it is clearly a content dispute, resolved at one page after a 3rd Opinion was asked by me but still remaining at the other article. And it will be better if some neutral person contact the project instead of me(being an active member of the project), because WikiProject Pakistan is still not aware of this dispute. Secondly please ask the complaining editor not to put blames on me blindly for sock puppetry, if he is so much strong in his this belief then ask him to make a case against me at WP:SSP or even would be better to do that at WP:RFCU. --SMS ^Talk 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden and other Buddhism articles

• Article links:
  • Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • New Kadampa Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Users:
  • Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Wikilama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Helen37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Helen38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Trudy21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Truthsayer62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • BaldyBoris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Geoffduggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Strettolicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Act72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AN3 Report
• Previous ANI discussion

On April 17, six new users joined Wikipedia and started editing a group of Buddhism articles Dorje Shugden, among other Buddhism articles. They are all six obviously sock puppets or meat puppets. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha confirmed that Wisdombuddha = Wikilama and Helen37=Trudy21, but found no other relationship between them. Whether they are the same person or meat puppets, they are all single-purpose POV-pushing accounts. I came across this issue when examining the AN3 report and saw that they have driven Kt66 (talk · contribs) from the project. Their only talk page edits have been to complain that the article is not favorable to their denomination (or whatever it is called in Buddhism) and to make accusations against Kt66. I don't know a thing in this world about Buddhism, but I do know about meat puppetry and the disruption here seems obvious. Unless I hear any serious objections, my intention is to indefblock all six of them. WP:MEAT says that meat puppets may be treated like sock puppets. As such, I believe an indefinite block/community ban is warranted. Comments? --B (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the earlier discussion and confirmation of sockpuppetry (and near-certain metapuppetry), I thought the users were already blocked. If not, I'd definitely support it. I'm not familiar with the topic or specific edits, but it certainly seems they're purposefully disrupting topics and tag-teaming a responsible editor. Support. Redrocket (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this down as it has gotten lost in the WR drama above. Could some people take a look at this? As of right now, that article has been turned into utter nonsense (see these edits). --B (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a ban, given that they're tag-teaming and using socks to push their POV on a subject. --Haemo (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They are getting active on Dalai Lama and Tenzin Gyatso too. Yunfeng (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more names, as these editors appear to be multiplying, but all pushing the same POV and owning the articles. Again, seems to be purposeful disruption. Redrocket (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Helen38 (talk · contribs), Geoffduggan (talk · contribs), Wisdomsword (talk · contribs) and Helen37 (talk · contribs). Thatcher 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

User:Imad marie is busy with POV-pushing in this article. I've tried to neutralize the article (with proper sources), but Imad marie reverted my edits, considering that Internet Infidels site is not reliable source. I've tried to discuss with him, but he's ignoring me so far. Abdullais4u (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So far this looks like a content sourcing dispute over a religious article. You might try looking into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't see anything an admin can do for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia enforce its policies regarding behavior, but not content? The problem with dispute resolution (regarding content) is there is not a single step that is binding. People can just ignore dispute resolution regarding content. All that matters is being in the majority. Life.temp (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean if a decision is made regarding an article's content, that decision should be enforced in the future, and any deviation from it should be reverted? I dunno. Probably something to bring up at VP policy. Would make for a very interesting and controversial argument, I can tell you that. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Not to the point of specifying what an article should say. An example of what I mean would be a decision--with authority--that something violates a content policy. An editor repeatedly going against that decision would be blocked from the article. Now, no step in the dispute resolution process involves a ruling on violation of content policies. Obviously, there are many rulings on violations of conduct policies. Life.temp (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a user repeatedly acts against decisions resulting from mediation requests etc, that is a conduct issue, and can be handled here. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no obligation to participate in mediation, and the results are described as non-binding. There is simply no enforcement of policies about content. Life.temp (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Difficult communications with User:BalkanFever

He was asked to use English language with this kind request but he used a Slavic language to answer, as usual. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In case it matters, this is the translation of the message: If you'd like to know what I said, just ask me. Don't bother me with template messages. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What admin intervention does this require? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that deliberately working to exclude editors who don't speak your language is contrary to the idea of community based editing. It's disruptive, in that it interrupts the normal editing patterns we have here. Further, it's a sure set up for problems down the line. Imagine four editors all talking in a non-english language here, deciding they have 'consensus', then implementing major changes on the page, citing their foreign language discussion as proof to any who question them. that's disruptive, plain and simple. he should be advised that all non-user talk page conversations should be in the native Wikilanguage, to facilitate the widest access to other editors. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Day to day talk page posts in Slavic text on en.wikipedia are wholly uncommunicative and exclusionary and I must say, these seem meant to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A certain amount of non-English talk is pretty common in these areas. As long as it's on user talk pages, in conversations that really only affect the users participating, as long as it's not done conspirationally (like, for coordinating edit wars or for venting against opponents of other nationalities), and as long as people are prepared to explain or translate when asked, I personally have no problem with it, and I do it myself from time to time. Of course B.F.'s reaction in this case, as a sarkastic POINT violation, using it deliberately to someone who he knows does not understand it, is rather on the incivil side – but then, he also did have a point in protesting agains the unnecessary "templating the regulars". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, (and I disagree with the 'templating the regs', as do the peopel who continue to template me at times), hes' still wrong to use it anywhere a larger group might converse, or when asked to use a language that's more accessible. ThuranX (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, why would a larger group converse on my (or another Macedonian user's) talk page, much less in the specific section? And I am not conspiring or insulting anyone, but The Cat and the Owl can think what he wants. I don't believe I've actually had a conversation with him though. He's probably more pissed off that I use the Macedonian language, which is some form of personal attack against him in his mind (look at his userpage). If anybody needs a translation of anything they can ask me, instead of starting useless AN/I threads. BalkanFever 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, wrong conclusion. An admin kindly asked me the same and since then I just use English. I don’t see why I cant’ apply the same request to other contributors, since it’s a wikipedia rule. As simple as that. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also in the past asked for translations of User:BalkanFever's more colourful edit summaries, but these have not always been forthcoming. I know enough Slavonic to know that kur means cock, gaz means arse and budal means idiot, so I assumed the edit summaries were intended as insults. Admittedly, there have been instances where he didn't understand my Greek, but his close associate User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was always there to help him out. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You don't know much at all. Gazda means boss (patrón), and "kur me boli" means "I don't care" (literally: my dick hurts). Complete translation:

This should be deleted as a POV fork (lit. "mirror") but really I don't care. Maybe some thick-head will rape the page and the boss will delete it. (The boss being my "close associate" Fut. Perf.)

The other one:

100 denars says this (the move) will be reverted by some idiot.

Well, the page is still there, but my move was reverted by a sock (user:Marc KJH) of user:Bonaparte. BalkanFever 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. Balkan's use of English substitute languages is less wide spread than The Cat and the Owl's marking of most of his edits as minor (even when they're clearly not) and his lack of use of edit summaries. This report is an overreaction to an issue with a fairly simple solution: if you have an issue with foreign languages being used in edit summaries or on talk pages, talk to the editor in question like a reasonable person and express your concerns in a way that won't be seen as patronizing, such as templating a regular. In my opinion, telling a regular "Oh hey, did you know about this rule" will not usually yield productive results. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

As there is a continuous EditWar and confussion about the formation of the above institute at the article Diana, Princess of Wales, I like to acknowledge the following information.

The above institute is initiated by me on 31st August, 1997, the day Late Diana, Princess of Wales passed away and entered the initiation of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" in her condolence book for Late Diana, Princess of Wales at Westminster House, Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 03rd September, 1997 and informed officially to His Excellency David Tatham, CMG the High Commissioner from the Court of Saint James to Sri Lanka at Westminster House, the same day.

(The above details are mentioned in the Articles of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which is formally incorporated as an association in Sri Lanka on 30th June, 1998.)

(The condolence book is currently kept at Kensington Palace.)

I have sent a copy of the articles of the association to OTRS.Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A question for the above editor. I noticed that you had not edited wikipedia for over a year. What prompted you to check this particular article, at this particular time? It seems to be rather good timing, and I wondered if there was anything behind your return. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam. This could use administrative eyes. The editor was notified of the sock investigation three days ago, but doesn't mention that case here. Either needs guidance or possibly forum shopping. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Further to all the "hoo - haw" arond this article/information let me say here and now. I'm done with the both articles and the surrounding wikidrama. Both the primary contributors in the dispute are at fault here and probably for a number of different reasons. I feel that they both have quite a history with Wiki and this subject before I arrived on seen and at this point can not AGF with either one (or their socks/additional accounts). I'd like some admins to have a good review of the whole thing but, am not willing to get any more deeply involved. Let me say sorry to anybody that I may have caused any aggravation to along the way. As I said at the Sock case please if you are Sennen goroshi or Bermudatriangle or them in any other guise don't bother contacting me in anyway shape or form until such time as I say I'm prepared to AGF again. Thank you everyone. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Feel free to show any form of evidence you wish that I am a sockpuppet, if you cannot back up your accusations, then don't make them. I consider the above to be a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time to cool off. After reading your message elsewhere, I consider any dispute between the both of us to no longer an issue. I think everyone involved (including myself)could have chosen their words a little better. What is important is not some petty argument, but the article and the edits. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

206.78.117.227 Blanking pages

This anon IP has either blanked or vandalised pages for the past two days. It looks like they are trying to space the vandalism out so they don't get banned too easily. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's a school ip -- just received a final warning, no reason to block unless they do it again after the warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As a note, it is better to report vandals to WP:AIV. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan (talk · contribs)'s topic ban

Dear Community, I am here to ask for a review of a topic ban which I implemented within the rules laid about in the Macedonian (Balkan) Arbitration case on Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I initially received word of this user as part of a role as an uninvolved administrator reviewing each case brought to my attention, in this particular case, by Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I have reviewed other cases before, and further discussed that with the user in question.

As far as I was made aware (and in co-operation with a further investigation that I conducted into Beamathan's contributions and block log), he looked like the regular at the log of blocks of bans at the ArbCase: relatively limited contributions in terms of broadness, creation of account around the time of Kosovo's independence and fitted the troll criteria (i.e. removal of content, telling others what to do, dismissive and exaggerated reactions, edit warring etc.) He had made some reasonable attempts otherwise within the article and the talk page, but with the broadness and severity of trolling (which is norm for those at Talk:Kosovo nowadays) I felt there was no other choice but to restrict editing in that for 14 days. With respect to the most recent comments that he has made, he implies that Husond may have exacerbated the 'wounds' if you like, and they both now have personal grudges one another. So, was I right to act upon the comments by Husond, even though that he was personally involved with the user in question? Should this topic ban be extended to the Husond also? This has been proposed by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) on my talk page. Rudget (Help?) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good this was brought here, it's naturally useful to have my conduct perused by the community. When the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence was imminent back in January I decided to start monitoring that topic in order to help protect it against predictable disruption and edit wars, and maintain neutrality. Many times I had to intervene at talk pages and remind users to be civil, refrain from warring, and cooperate constructively with each other. But eventually some users will ignore calls for mutual respect and instead turn against me. This is precisely one of those cases. Beamathan had been warned against incivility and trolling, persisted with such behavior, thus meriting the topic ban, and is now insisting that I'm on a "crusade" against him. I have no grudges whatsoever against Beamathan. For me he's just another user whose participation in the Kosovo topic I was monitoring and deemed inadequate. Beamathan has now requested the help of administrator Dbachmann, whose participation in the Kosovo topic has also been rather confrontational. Dbachmann even questioned my adminship following a disagreement over an article merger [148], a reaction that I must say I had never experienced on Wikipedia before, and which naturally determines my entire judgment of Dbachmann's ability to communicate with other users (if not of his own character). I am therefore not surprised with his request for me to be topic banned as well. I'm okay with that, my conduct is transparent and easily investigated. If an uninvolved admin finds my participation disruptive then I'll naturally accept a topic ban. Monitoring Kosovo-related articles is not an easy task, so I was expecting occasional opposition to my job, and complaints. If my work there is deemed inadequate, then by all means I should and will step aside. But until then, I'll continue to strive for the enforcement of civil and constructive cooperation on the Kosovo topic. Húsönd 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sort of prepared to assume Husond is being serious here, but I must say if he is, his take on the situation is rather ... subjective (to put it politely). What he calls "monitoring" and "help protect" to my eye has been extremely unhelpful and biased. The 2 April diff expresses my surprise at Husond being an admin (I have actually been surprised several times over, since in the face of his completely irresponsible behaviour I had forgotten he was one several times over, and I tended to class him as just another pov-pusher based on his contributions). I have not called for his de-adminning or anything. This isn't about "admin abuse". Neither Husond nor I have made use of any admin buttons in this. Nor am I calling for any sort of ban against Husond. The issue here is that Husond managed to talk another admin into issuing a topic ban against User:Beamathan, who is a somewhat exciteable fellow, but who has evidently done his best to improve the article, tackle the ethnic pov-pushing and defend the consensus version. I am asking for review of the 14 days topic ban imposed by Rudget in good faith, but upon instigation on the part of Husond. If you review the talkpage, there are about half a dozen accounts just screaming to be topic-banned, and it is patently unfair to just slap a single user because some involved user knows a few admins. Any takers? --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to put anything politely if you're so willing to demonstrate that you'd rather not be polite. As for the "biased and unhelpful", anyone can go diff-hunt your past couple of months and check who's been biased and unhelpful. Won't be me, I'm really not fond of ANI drama. As for all the accounts "screaming to be topic-banned", if there's so many of them, how come you haven't taken any procedure to have them effectively banned? Perhaps you prefer them running amok? Or perhaps you prefer to attack someone who's trying to have them curbed? Beamathan was neither slapped nor was the single user to be banned. He was the second in a series that will naturally keep growing. Yes, I know a few admins, everyone does. Your point? Húsönd 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I could say something: I consider Beamathan to be a worthwhile contributor to the page/discussion, and this topic ban seems a bit long. He has done a bit of shouting lately, but that would be from the frustration that comes from the whole environment of that talk page. I have seen many trolls there, and I wouldn't group Beam with them. (Nor would I group Husond with them, btw). Maybe he broke WP:COOL, but I don't think he did much else to warrant WP:ARBMAC sanctioning. BalkanFever 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan is not a totally unproductive user, he's been helpful to the discussions many times. But lately he's been too carried away with the frustration you mentioned, and he had been warned several times about his behavior. By not refraining to moderate his speech towards users he disagrees with, Beam was causing more damage than benefit. The article is under Arbcom probation, thus a ban was in order. Again, warned several times. Húsönd 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that this topic ban comment above by myself does of course recognise the good work he may have done. However, as part of the discretionary sanctions formed by the Macedonian Arbitration case. As it says there "the sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". Beamathan's contributions were, I am afraid, on a downward spiral (shown in the diffs provided above and the actual topic ban thread). As far as I am aware, he had received sufficient warnings beforehand, including a caution about recent editing patterns and their potential consequences (i.e. topic ban) here. Rudget (Help?) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to agree with you saying "recent editing patterns" show a "downward spiral." Care to be specific? I have never harmed the article of Kosvo. Not once. I don't care about being allowed to edit the article for personal reasons. And in fact I don't care at all. As long as users like Balkans and Dab and others are there than I trust that article will be there when I get back.

What I don't agree with is that Husond, who has exhibited bias in the past, bitched and moaned to you personally to get me banned. It's disgusting. As Dab points out, i believe he had goaded me into making comments that, when taken out of context, make me look like an ***hole. Husond is in blatant violation of WP:BITE, I have been bitten. I also dislike the fact that the reason for this ban is "Disruption to the Kosovo Article."

That's lies. This ban, if for anything, is over WP:COOL. I have never harmed the article or disrupted the article's slow, but steady, progress towards Featured Quality. That is my issue. Did I lose my cool? Maybe. But I was only possibly uncool in defense of NPOV and Consensus. And honestly, in the arena that is that article, WP:COOL isn't followed and my actions, sadly, were not able to rise above the environment there.

14 days isn't fair. And putting the reason as "constant and sustained disruption of the Kosovo Article" is not only wrong, but it's insulting to me. Sadly this was perpetrated by Husond. Ask any contributor to that article... any one of them that isn't a POV Pusher. They will tell you that I'm a good editor, and that I've never done anything to harm that article. That's all I'll say in my defense. Beam 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Users taking advantage of Mediation restrictions

I've noticed a few users taking advantage of the injunction proposed (and agreed to) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender and removing the tags from the articles in controversy, all of which were placed by the Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). I'm in particular concerned with Cozret (talk · contribs); he's removing tags calling them "anti-RPG" when in fact there is no such evidence of them being so. As I'm involved (having reverted tags due to there being no assertations of notability and myself abiding by the restriction), could an admin talk to Cozret? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to hold removing more of Gavin.collins tags until they are done moderating. However, once it is established that he did nothing more then cut and paste a block of tags into every RPG article he could find. I'm going right back to preventing the removal of the hard and honest work people have done. --Cozret (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for your blatant assumption of bad faith towards Gavin? ("[...]Gavin.collins standard issue anti-rpg^[sic] tagbox") -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How is blatant barnstorming every posting about RPGs with a cut and paste box of just about every tag you can think of not bad faith? I'm not sure how someone is suppose to take such an action. If you issue is with my view that it was in bad faith, I'd ask you how such an attack isn't in bad faith. --Cozret (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because he has tagged other (unrelated) articles with such boxes, and in most cases they appear valid. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So, his random tagging process hit a single correct issue . . .and this makes it all good? --Cozret (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read through Wikipedia policies - most of his tags hit correct issues. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So, that's the Wikipedia policy is it. Run through, slap the same block on every page you can find rather then engaging the authors about why you feel the page needs it, see if the page can be improved and help get it up to standards, then move on to the next? No wonder people think that just running through like a biker from hell slapping notices on everything will climb them up the ranks. --Cozret (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read anything below this? Black Kite and Merkinsmum, both of whom are uninvolved, agree that the tags are (for the most part) legitimate. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. The great league of notice box posters thinks it's all just grand. However, your appeal to popularity doesn't make something correct. "Policy" and rule-lawyering, doesn't make something correct. Now why not answer the question I put to you. --Cozret (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the correctness (or not) of all Gavin's taggings, what definitely isn't correct is removing tags that plainly belong there, such as your edit here which removed the primarysources tag from an article that is clearly only referenced by primary sources, or this edit removing the notability tag from an article that clearly asserts no notability at all. Black Kite 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please do stop - I know you're not an involved party and didn't agree to the restrictions that the rest of us agreed to, but nothing's going to kill the mediation process faster than attacking when someone's laid down their weapons to discuss a peace treaty, so to speak. All we are saying, is give peace a chance. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And how are you going to ensure that those articles, that people put a lot of work into, aren't going to get auto-removed while you all try to talk reason to someone who might or might not understand? I will hold until you are done, but I want to know how you are going to keep peoples work from being lost between then and now. --Cozret (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't ensure anything. However, if someone else other than Gavin tries to do something to them (which would also violate the spirit of the voluntary restrictions), then you have every right to grab someone's attention (or report it here), and I hope you do. If Gavin himself were to do something he agreed not to do, then that would show a lack of good faith on his part, but I can't see him doing that and I think we're all going to behave in the meantime. As one of those people who put a lot of work into various D&D articles I'm asking you to trust me for now. BOZ (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A comment- A lot of the RPG articles do have notability issues when it comes to WP:RS such as you would find in a google news search- there are none or about one from an obscure fanzine or something. What is being done to Gavin.collins because of his attempts to remove what he believes (and I often agree with him following WP:RS) non-notable articles from the wiki is a form of bullying IMHO. See where the fans ganged up on him, but uninvolved members of the community saw the valid notability concerns for these articles (and no he hasn't tagged every one- that would be impossible as the fans have written so many) on the RfC which the fans with a disproportionate sense of these subject's importance (IMHO) made Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins.Merkin's mum 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Merkins, I'm a fan/DM, and I still find his tags correct. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I looked through Gavin's most recent taggings. For example Carceri - 5 tags (notability, in-universe, unsourced, OR, plot) - First 3 correct, fourth one correct but unnecessary because of sourcing tag, fifth one probably unnecessary. This seems to be representative of Gavin's taggings - most are correct, but some are unnecessary, and too many tags are ugly and irritate people working on the articles. In most cases, unless there's a pressing other issue, I'd stick to the notability and sourcing tags - if those issues are fixed, most others are too. Black Kite 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Gavin, Jeske, myself, and a few others involved in that case are under voluntary restriction until the case is over, to neither add nor remove tags on D&D articles unless we all agree on them (which, of course, we probably won't all agree) - this is why it is a problem for an uninvolved editor to add or remove possibly controversial tags, because none of us can do anything about it right now. Otherwise, Jeske would probably have reverted the changes himself. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Kite. Although his methods aren't the most endearing to believers in these articles (understandably) he's entitled to his usually valid opinion on notability and sourcing. Fans tend to respond to any questioning of notability with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith etc, not just on these articles but that can happen over any articles, a gang of fans attack someone (not saying all people on an article are like this.) I can understand his dislike of articles he and others uninvolved consider non-notable- but he should try not to let it overwhelm him to the extent that he adds other tags. But he should get some backup in terms of supportive vibes and understanding from the wiki IMHO (and I think he does a bit.) What he's trying to do with the sourcing and notability etc efforts and AfDs etc is good, and I'm impressed at his tirelessness in the face of what leads editors like me to quickly give up trying to do what needs to be done to a lot of these articles.:) Merkin's mum 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I've seen Gavin post on other editors talk pages since he agreed to these restrictions, using the fact that he's involved in a RfM to suggest that anyone removing tags he placed prior to that point are attempting to take advantage of his situation. That in and of itself comes across as a subtle form of bullying, and certainly doesn't assume good faith towards any other editors. That said, the heavy removal of tags by Cozret isn't exactly helpful at the moment, and it risks making Gavin look like the victim here when mediation is attempting to address many editors' concerns towards -his- actions. Many of Gavins tags are correct, if heavy handed and annoying along with the tone he takes towards other editors all too frequently, but I wouldn't remove large numbers of his tags without addressing the issues (if and when they exist). Other articles such as one where he openly admitted knowing nothing of the topic, yet tagged dozens of points at random with OR tags (including some where the source was listed within the very text he tagged as being OR) are a more pointed view of what many of us see as a long-term, systemic problem that hopefully mediation can begin to address.Shemeska (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See, there's a number of people who've reacted very badly to Gavin's mass taggings, partly because they feel they aren't valid (and in my view they're usually wrong about that) and partly because of the hostile feeling there is to it. Gavin has even, sadly, been the target of vandalism seemingly because of this. However, there are a number of us who agree with the majority (or at least a lot) of Gavin's tagging, but take issue with his reaction in the cases where there is reasonable opposition to some of the tags. There are other issues (regarding behaviour both from and towards Gavin) that could be talked about, but they're not major and life's too short. As a final note, the restrictions as I understand them allow Gavin to replace tags that were unilaterally removed; there seems to remain a question on tags removed with general consensus, but not Gavin's agreement. SamBC(talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that the tags are usually valid, downgrading it to frequently valid. On the article Eilistraee, Gavin has placed 5 tags: Notability, In-Universe, Weasel, In-Text Citations, and Context. Of these, only two are valid. The use of the weasel words template reeks of someone simply trying to blanket an article he doesn't like in as many tags as possible. The claim that the introduction of the article has insufficient context is also quite untrue. While the notability is in question, Gavin tagged the article as non notable fictional location, when Eilistraee is a character/diety. To reiterate what many have said before, it is this carelessness and demonstration that Gavin does not read the articles he tags that people have the issue with, not that he tags them in the first place. See also this version [149] of Lady of Pain, noting the same batch of tags placed and the incompleteness of the edit summary. 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School

Indy424242 (talk · contribs) listed Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. Calvin 1998 (talk · contribs) speedy tagged the AfD and vandal warned Indy424242. I declined the speedy and fixed the AfD. Not sure what's going on here, but seems odd. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd is right. I'm looking into it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

These are clearly students at the school. Indy424242 (talk · contribs) has edited pranks into the article. The nomination has nothing to do with deletion policy. The AfD should be closed as malformed. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We delete middle schools anyway. One of those times we should just delete it summarily anyway. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Aside from somewhat interesting architecture there's not much to note about it. The two other middle schools in Palo Alto also have articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Middle schools aren't deleted, they are merged with the school district. So, basically same thing as deleted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

attacked

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours by User:Persian Poet Gal — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:190.17.129.41 attacked User:Elipongo using words like F***ER! . This could turn out to be more than a vandal's insult. This is the complete note --Megapen (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Their contributions were all personal attacks in the past 24 hours. Next time feel free to report someone whose comments are blatant personal attacks on WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockmaster unblocking

A blind man can see the answer to that question, Deskana.

What's with the current rash of unblocking sockmasters? I mean, there's been, what, five or six threads on unblocking some perma-banned sockmaster or other, and most of them seem to be getting unblocked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Either a great step forward, or a great step back. Which one it is remains to be seen. --Deskana (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A plague is upon Thebes. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Step back imo. Too many people have been reading WP:AGF. Wizardman 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that I have problems unbanning/unblocking long term sock abusers. In the range of conduct violations, I rank socking above even POV-pushing, because with POVers, you know who they are and can revert. With socks you can never be certain who your dealing with. All this rushed embracing of banned sockmasters, some of whom refuse to admit they socked is something that concerns me. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiempo al tiempo, we will soon figure out if these are mistakes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist threat

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

Resolved

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

Resolved

 – WP:DENY, come on guys... Tiptoety ^talk 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Found this on my watchlist, and think action is required, but what? [150] -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the legal department been contacted? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a stupid threat; made from a comcast connection in Michigan, so the FBI could find the household pretty easily if anyone cared to contact them. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, we're not doing this again are we? Just ignore it. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I informed the TSA and DHS via their web forms with the diff. Bstone (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That was kind of pointless, the "terrorist" is in Michigan using a cable IP address, [151] its definitely someone playing a prank. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So? If you yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded buliding, the police are still going to want a word with you. As I've stated before, there are jokes you just don't make.HalfShadow (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They are rather common here, we should judge the situation carefully before wasting the time of government agencies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV, I erred on the side of caution. It is a felony just making the threat. Bstone (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the correct action. WilyD 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FBI called

Within just a few minutes of reporting the threat here I got a call on my phone from the FBI. The agent had already done a WHOIS and agreed with me it's 99.99% chance a kid who made a stupid comment, but that all threats of this nature must be investigated. What made it a little more concerning is that this is the first contribution of any sort from this IP. The FBI person said they will be contacting the WMF and alluded the location in which the threat came from will be getting a visit. I made it very clear to the FBI agent that I do not work for WMF, but rather am a volunteer editor and just a concerned citizen. He thanked me several times. I take threats to be serious- this one had a date/time and a location, so it passes my personal test, and as such I reported it. Bstone (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As they say, it is only perhaps a one in a hundred trillion chance that this is a valid threat. But, this could be threat number 100 trillion, so you never know. Always err on the side of caution in these matters. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. It's their job to decide what can be dismissed and what can't, not Wikipedia editors. daveh4h 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, anyone who read the message can figure that no terrorist will post a notice in :Wikipedia before acting, especially in such a childish and obvious matter, even further has anybody seen Al-Qaeda use English in their written communications? I haven't and there are some things that make it simple to distiguish between someone used to write in Arab and someone using the Latin alphabet, for example typos, puntuation and other things derrived from writting "backwards". Perhaps WP:WASTEOFTAXMONEY should serve as a redirect for WP:TOV in the same manner that WP:DRAMA redirects here... - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the redirect is appropriate please do it. I will, however, revert it as inappropriate humor and some may even view it as plain vandalism. Bstone (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in vandalism after spending two years without doing so, perhaps you should differentiate sarcasm from serious statements. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Bstone for doing the right thing. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, anyone not living under a rock would know "JIHAD ALLAH" is from the movie Team America: World Police. Durka durka allah! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if Pranky McNumbnuts has to explain to Mummy and Daddy WHY the nice FBI man wants a word with them, has the holy living bejabbers scared out of him by the threat of felony charges, and takes away the appropriate lesson (that being, "don't be a fecking idiot"), then the universe as a whole has been improved very slightly and some good has come of it all. Do I appreciate that it probably cost 1.2 million of my tax dollars? Maybe not so much--but hey, sometimes small improvement comes at great cost. But that, I'm sure, is probably just me. Gladys J Cortez 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

^Agree. The fact that junior there, and not to mention everyone watching this incident here, all learn a lesson from this not to make idle terrorist threats as pranks is reason enough to say reporting it was the right thing to do. If you ignore this stuff you only encourage it, which will make the real thing that much harder to spot. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Terrorist threats... How much I love them... Let me count the blocks... -- Cat ^chi? 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• what haoenned to revert block ignore?
• all the people who don't want to call the feebs: you don't have to. dont stop others doing it thoouh if they want too but they should'nt be making drama about t either. 10:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It always fascinates me when people do something because of the "one in a trillion chance" that something bad could happen. What a complete and utter waste of time, money, and effort. Last I checked, I can't "stop others from doing it", nor did I try, but I can point out that it doesn't make sense. Doing something because of the one in a trillion chance that something bad could happen means you don't have time to act on the thing with a one in 10,000 chance of happening. In other words, prioritize, ignore trolls, and RBI. I don't think it's a coincidence that these kinds of threats seem to be occuring more frequently now that we seem to be getting more worked up about them than we used to. --barneca (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

does no one else think that phone call was worth it just so we can imagine the looks on some kids face when the FBI knock on his door. Seriously though, you say theres a one in a trillion chance of this being a real terrorist threat, but even that miniscule tiny chance is enough to make it worth the effort, even if its just the projects safety we're guaranteeing. If you heard about the school shooting threat that was on here a few weeks ago, you may have seen that wikipedia got a fair bit of stick for not reacting earlier. Imagine if one day there is a real threat of terroism reported on here(touch wood), and its reported and found to be real and stopped. Suddenly, wikipedia will come under massive scrutinity, and so it'll come out there have been more threats, some of which we ignored. The public backlash to something like that could destroy any credibility the project has--Jac16888 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a waste of time, because you never know. The FBI, I'm sure, tracks thousands of false leads every year and are used to it. They probably don't mind false leads, because they get paid either way, and a false lead is less likely to result in an agent getting shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a one in a trillion chance; that was someone else's made up number. But whatever the actual number, I'm saying just the opposite of what you're saying; that if there's a nearly infinitesimal chance that this was a serious risk, then no, it doesn't make sense to make that call "just in case". It feeds the trolls, and encourages, rather than discourages, imitators who think they're smarter, and won't get caught, but who notice the attention it gets. Just like in real life, we're allowed to use our judgement. I don't think you and I (or, to be more accurate, most of the people on this thread, and I) will agree on this, as we seem to be coming at this from completely different perspectives, but I'm just hoping that someone reading this thread realizes that at least there isn't 100% community support for feeding trolls, and if they run across obviously silly stuff like this they really do have the option of WP:RBI, and not report it here, without being a horrible person. --barneca (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It only feeds the trolls if they know about it. I think these kinds of things should be handled behind the scenes rather than openly here. That's what e-mail is for. Someone reports the incident, nothing else is shown here, then it turns up "resolved" with no added comments, thus depriving other trolls from knowing what happened. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the chance that by calling the police 400 people could be saved from certain death was 0.0000000000001% and the chance that calling the police would result in the prankster's unsuspecting mother being shot by a paranoid SWAT team was 0.000000001%, then calling the police was irresponsible. The same argument applies if the chance that a police officer who would otherwise stay behind his desk is caused to drive to the kid and dies in a car accident with a 0.000000001% chance. Paranoia is not rational. This particular instance of paranoid behaviour seems to be an example for what is known as zero-risk bias. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense and apparent credibility do figure into it. But the idea that we shouldn't "bother" the FBI is a risky attitude. They are there to do a job. There have been a number of threats in America that weren't taken seriously and which resulted in murder and mayhem. Better to take the cautious approach and contact the authorities, and let them decide, rather than us playing guessing games, as to whether a "threat" is real or not. That's their job, and it's what we pay them to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All of you stating that this is just a "harmless" prank and that we shouldn't "waste time" in contacting the proper authorities are the reason those authorities exist. For your protection. I don't care if it was a 6-yr-old kid playing around, as stated previously there are things you do not do - like yelling "fire" in a theater, saying "bomb" in an airport, and making a terrorist threat - joke or otherwise. It will be a valuable lesson learned for this child and his/her parents when a federal agent calls or knocks on the door to investigate and sternly let them know the severity of such a "harmless prank." Do not try to argue or lecture about tax dollars unless you work in the budgeting department of one of these agencies. As a military man, I must say I am proud of those above who took the action to call and point out the threat. I commend you all for a job well done. For those who cry about it being trivial, I tell you stand aside and let others take charge of protecting you. Rarelibra (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the action of contacting authorities on this matter. Not so much because I think there is a remote possibility that the threat is real (in all likelihood it isn't, but that's not my call to make), but because simply making such a threat is in and of itself unacceptable (and depending on circumstances, in many jurisdictions, unlawful) behavior in a civilized society. Reporting it has not wasted anyone's time or anyone's tax dollars, it was the person who posted this threat who has done that. If posting a threat like that brings a stern consequence, then that will discourage this person, and others, from making "jokes" like this. No, the consequence of making such a threat should not be five years at Guantanamo, but a visit from an FBI officer should be enough to put a stop to any further temptations like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Elections are historical

• Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Months ago, Steelbeard and I had a disagreement over candidates listed on election pages. I was of the belief that properly cited speculation (for instance from local newspapers' web sites) regarding potential candidates was noteworthy enough to bear mention in the article (keeping in line with user:Markles template Template:Elections are historical which states that "This (election page) is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet."). Steelbeard felt that such potential candidates shouldn't be mentioned at all. User:Jayvdb proposed a compromise where the names would be mentioned in the text but not in the bullet point lists. Steelbeard agreed but also asked Markles if he could block me to teach me a lesson which Markles of course declined. More recently, we had the same disagreement on Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 after he did the same thing there. I reminded him of the compromise and implemented it myself after which he agreed, that was a little over two weeks ago so I was surprised when Steelbeard removed the cited names from Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008. I do not want to spend the rest of my life cleaning up after him so I put a warning on his talk page and simply reverted his change. He went on to edit war with me. I again reverted his changes on Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 a 2nd time with a more specific message about the compromise, his response to this was to go to Louisiana's 1st congressional district special election, 2008, a different election page, and to remove cited names from that page as well.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my talk (a recent rev), and the Doctor's (a recent rev) I was asked to mediate in this, but i'm not sure it's something to mediate, much less something to bring to AN/I. I think this is a content dispute that needs to find a good place to be talked through to see if the compromise will still work or will no longer work, rather than something that needs admin action. I'm willing to try to keep making suggestions if the parties are willing to listen. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But Steelbeard and I have put this issue up for mediation before (which reulted in Jayvdb's compromise) and he didn't stick to the resolution. He just waited a few months and carried on as though nothing had happened.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ALl the hallmarks of the Civil POV Push we so often discuss but so seldom do anythign about here on AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who has a history of not following consensus. The main problem with his edits is that "potential" and "declined" candidates are not candidates at all. So they do not belong in candidates' lists. They could be included in the body of an article if there are valid journalistic sources with linkable citations. But some of those names in the articles currently in question do not have valid citations or have become dead links. I've posted warnings about citations which have become dead links already for the appropriate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Account Hijacking

Judging by the latest contributions, this account seems to be hijacked. Oore (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He's just strange like that. The hijacking came after. Avruch ^T 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it appears User:Gurch was just playing around, I have confirmed it though an off wiki source. Tiptoety ^talk 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL WUT? Gurch (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I just thought it was strange that he would redirect a user's page like that. Oore (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is exactly like him to do something like that. :D Tiptoety ^talk 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just Gurch being..uh..uh...Gurch, anyway the annual Account Hijacking day is on May 8th, so its safe for now :) ..--Cometstyles 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gurch's assessment on this situation. Al Tally (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could someone please tell me WTFBBQ is going on? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gurch==Gurch. And all is right with the world for those who have somewhat warped (but mostly harmless) senses of humor. The rest of us are bemused. As per usual. No harm done though I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me if I made the situation worse or confused anyone. It appears that someone was concerned that Gurch's account had become compromised. I made contact with him on a external source and confirmed it was in fact Gurch making those edits, hence Gurch = Gurch. Tiptoety ^talk 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting someone's userpage to "Failure" is okay because that's typical behaviour? -- Naerii 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was play. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's Gurch :) - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gurch is not doing well. He vandalized WP:TOV just a few minutes ago. I think he needs a wikibreak. Bstone (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason behind that edit is all the way up here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Comments like this [152] as the first comment on a newbies RfA are fine just because it's Gurch? Why? What's so special about Gurch that makes this OK? -- Naerii 22:00, 6 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)

Absolutely inappropriate edit to WP:TOV by HiDrNick

This is absolutely inappropriate and really in not humorous in any way. Why disrupt this project page in such a way? Bstone (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While Nick has a valid argument he is presenting it in the wrong way. The purpose of that page is to give evidence as to why you should contact the police in a situation where there is a threat of violence (hence it being a essay), the purpose is not to attempt to disprove the information being offered, and if thats what needs to happen, it needs to happen on the talk page first. Tiptoety ^talk 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I note that Jimbo did say that, it was nearly 2 years ago. He said this a little over one week ago. I think HiDrNick took what Jimbo said nearly 2 years ago, and has tried to misuse it. My 2c here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think I missed the meeting where ANI became the first step in dispute resolution. Anyway, exaclty what gave you the impression that my edit was intended to be humorous? It wasn't. Do those who hold Jimbo's words in such mbox-enshrining high esteem dare to pick and choose which of His proclamations are mbox worthy, and which ones should be relegated to the talk page? Or perhaps it would be more sensible to leave His comments on the talk page, where He made them. I daresay that If Jimbo wanted to plaster His comments in an mbox on the front page of the essay itself, I'm sure He would have done it Himself---and I sure as hell wouldn't be reverting Him about it.  :-P ➪HiDrNick! 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• The reason humor was mentioned was because Gurch made several edits to that page and other pages which were justifiably excused as his way of being humorous. See above. Enigma ^message 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but clearly, I'm not nearly as funny as Gurch. ➪HiDrNick! 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe if you tried harder. ;) Enigma ^message 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, it's no secret that "Jimbo says.." are indeed used at will, and discounted at will. Whatever suits the admin and the moment, I'd presume. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:48, 6 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,[153][154][155] 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[156], which is sourced[157][158] without discussing his controversial change on the talkpage first.
• Examples of violation of WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:TALK can be found here[159] 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[160][161] and in MRSC's case the harassment and disruption has spread to talk pages of articles.[162][163] 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.[164] And the fact that this morning, I have discussed it with administrator KieferSkunk[165].

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)

Questionable Questioning on the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page

Crass conversationalist has just come back from being inactive, and at last count had added 50+ fact tags to the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page. Since it's a 9/11 attacks page, I thought the admins should be notified. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Way too may {{fact}} tags - just think of the people with screen readers trying to wade through all that. I've removed them all and stuck a {{refimprove}} tag at the top of the article. Neıl ☎ 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note informing them of the 9/11 arbcom sanctions, and the perception that the tags were excessive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible minor's contact details

Resolved

 – Edits oversighted - Alison ^❤ 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this is the right place to post this, on the [redacted] page somebody has posted personal details saying that they're a twelve year old girl- I may be cynical but the phrase "I am a hearmless 12yr old" seems odd to me. I haven't clicked on the link because I'm at work and suspicious, but this might need admin attention? Thanks MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It's been sorted now. Good call, indeed! In future, you can always request that these edits be permanently deleted or "oversighted" by clicking on this link and following the instructions there. Thanks again for letting us know - Alison ^❤ 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputive edits of 68.5.250.146

Please see the long log of vandals by this user of it's another ID user:Nyisnotbad.
There is long priod of vandals by this man, And too many discussion were had no results.
Now Mazandarani language inaccurately protected and protected to the false version with no proper, honesty none of sources talked about it, And was a copy/paste of references i entered before, Thank you for your care. --Parthava (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands" of socks?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Alison.

This user [166] claims to be following up on a previous item, now archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive411 - look under "Implied_threat_of_bodily_harm" - and is issuing threats of a sort. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands?" - nahh - Alison ^❤ 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't talk to it directly, but I will report it if it posts on my talk page again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like trolling, and the user has been blocked. I think this can be marked resolved. Hut 8.5 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Insight in Dereks1x

I happen to be watching the saga of Dereks1x and have some insight on the real facts. I think people are going about it the wrong way.

Even I have been labelled as a Dereks1x sock but I can swear in court and by lie detector that I am not Derek. I do think I know who the real Derek is.

What happened was that the original Derek was not just one person but possibly three people. The original ban and early blocks could have been done with more tact. Some wrong conclusions were made. So one person could truthfully say "I am not Derek and I'm being blocked because of Derek, that's not right". So when you look at things as black and white (we are all good, he is all bad), it's not accurate. That's why the battle has continued for over a year. You can do what you want but given that length of the saga and that more than one person is affected, I think that it is a potential battle of years.

Adding to that is some of the anti-Derek people have POV agendas of their own. I am not too familiar with all the day to day events, but one sticks in my mind. Barack Obama is actually a junior since his father was senior. This is fact, nothing negative or to be ashamed about. However, the POV pushers, like Tvoz, attacked the user just because of that and would have none of this "junior" thing in the article (eventually he was overruled). That kind of behavior should have been noted by the administrators and would have calmed some tensions and put Tvoz in his place but administrators just ignored it and always take Tvoz' side.

Recently, some very different kinds of personalities have been accused of being Derek. (The POV pushers like Tvoz often use made up similarities to prove their point!) This could mean that the checkusers are siding with Tvoz and including anyone with the same ISP in this region as good enough evidence. Even the checkuser said that the ISP is very large with many users. If so, the battle could continue to decades.

A better idea might be to use the idea of HailFire (or was it Italiavivi) who suggested that Derek come back with ONE name.

Another idea would be for mediation and separation into who is Derek and who is not. Then you could get the person(s) who are not Derek to start cooperative editing. I think this is the best way but is unlikely to happen because some administrators are bent on killing others. I think there is already restraint on Derek's part because Derek socks have ALWAYS edited consecutively, never as several people at once.

I've asked my friend who's an administrator to help but he won't, too scared. That's telling.

What needs to happen is a very mature and fair administrator who can be a moderator. That's if wikipedia wants to solve the problem or just likes to continue to play the whack/ban/block game. It's like the Palestinian issue. As long as they have some legitimate grievance, the issue will continue. If you ban, block, kill all Palestinians, or say they are all one sock, you will not solve the problem. As for me, I don't care if I'm blocked as I just edit occasionally (but always very good edits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend of NrDg (talk • contribs)

It seems like you're asking for a chronic sockmaster to be unbanned and allowed, what, several accounts? I dunno. Perhaps if there were some good contributions to justify an attempt at rehabilitation?

My introduction to the wonderful world of Dereks1x socks was User:watchingobama, who created a coatrack article and was tendentious and disruptive during its AfD, before being identified as a sock of Dereks1x. I can see no reason why that account could not have quietly made good contributions to Wikipedia. So what would be the benefit of unbanning Derek? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the creator of this thread has also been blocked as a sock of Dereks1x. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't, he added it himself. Rudget (Help?) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, just looking at the page and not the block log :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:) Does that count as self-admitted sock? Not that you would want to of course! Rudget (Help?) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some laundry I think that needs washing.... Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with SheffieldSteel - the issue isn't so much the use of socks, but the fact that many of the socks identified as Derek's are engaged in unacceptable editing practices well before being tagged as socks. Watchingobama is a good example, where every reasonable attempt to discuss the issue at hand was met with accusations of bias and racism, followed by disruption and a block. If Derek had picked an account and edited reasonably, yes he would be evading a ban - but no one probably would notice. And there's a report of disruption every day, literally - Derek must be reasonably intelligent, surely he is aware of the results of trying the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The way to get Derek unbanned is for an account with, say, 3 months of quiet article building behind it, to post saying "I am Derek and I hereby demonstrate that I can be a good contributor". I would support an unban, I think, in that case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really work... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not, if the user's identity is discovered by someone else, if the contribs are not good (for example, people complaining about civility issues, stalking, etc.), and if people are angrily debating whether or not they are only sorry for getting caught. I don't want this to turn into another Jack Merridew thread though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[out]This individual has shown himself to be a bad faith editor who is determined to disrupt, no matter how many identities he needs to assume. This thread is just another example - one of his perennial favorites, being a "friend/wife/husband/coworker" of a blocked user who comes here to help us sort it all out. This username was blocked as well - look again. I appreciate the desire to assume good faith, but it is misplaced here - the history is long and very clear. Tvoz/talk 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm getting spam email from ...uh... someone who was alerted to my post by his secretary (that's novel). It seems the author of the mail VK35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked as a ... anyone? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked with email disabled. Nakon 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm having problems with a user on the Ann Scott article (french writer). He undoes everything I change, even though my changes are relevant (such as correcting errors in translation of citations in french, adding new elements found in the french press recently, etc). His name is Olaf150 (he just created a account with a name close to mine) and also makes changes not logged in with different UK ip's. Each time he's not saying why he's undoing what I've done. There is no dialogue and he's getting obnoxious, as on his own page for example, when creating his name, near Olaf he wrote oh-laugh. Can you help at all ? Thank you very much in advance. Olaf750 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The username and area of activity indicate an intent to duplicate the contributions of an established user - you - so I've blocked 0laf15O (talk · contribs) indef and asked that they register a new username. I also asked them to discuss changes before making or reverting them. I've watchlisted the Ann Scott article, so we'll see what happens. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IP ban requests

Resolved

 – Anonblocked for 24 hours.

216.19.47.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 12.159.135.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for repeated vandalism. Chris M. (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, but this is more properly handled at WP:AIV. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 6 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[167], Google Watch[168] and NameBase[169] - 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)

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)

Huge backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

I need some help over at WP:AIV - there's been a flood of activity.-Wafulz (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a really big backlog at WP:AIV. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've merged both warnings here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a third: AIV is hovering around 12 reports at this time, a severe backlog. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks all. Black Kite 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was really bad and as I mentioned at WT:AIV, for some reason the bot didn't add a backlog tag. I manually added and removed it. Mentioned it on AIVHelperbot's page. Enigma ^message 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and incivility related to Jeremiah Wright controversy

I've been editing Jeremiah Wright controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently and trying to keep the lid on some edit warring, but I've gotten too involved in the dispute to make a neutral judgement. There was some edit warring there a few days ago; I reviewed the edits, and found that three users (CyberAnth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ewenss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Trilemma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) had violated 3RR, and blocked them accordingly. More recently, Cryptographic hash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing rather tendentiously. He's been uncivil ([170], [171], [172] and has violated 3RR. Since I had been arguing with Cryptographic on the talk page, I thought it would be inappropriate for me to block him, so I filed a 3RR report; there's been no action so far. Other editors are complaining about Cryptographic's behavior ([173] [174] — note that the latter is by Trilemma, whom I previously blocked for 3RR violation). I've tried repeatedly to engage Cryptographic on his user talk page, with no productive result. I'd appreciate any feedback and/or action by uninvolved admins. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: EdJohnston blocked Cryptographic hash for 48 hours, which takes care of the most immediate concern. I'd still appreciate any feedback on the state of the article and how to encourage the parties to discuss rather than revert and insult each other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cryptographic hash has made subsequent additional reverts to the ones noted above by Josiah Rowe on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. In the following revert, he violated WP:CIVIL in the edit summary. [175] He has also violated WP:CIVIL on the article and user talk pages and has been very rude and disruptive in general. Josiah Rowe has made every possible effort to reasion with and educate the editor, but he refuses to change his behavior. It has been very difficult to work on this article and I am making a formal request that Cryptographic hash be blocked from any further participation on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. Thank You,75.31.210.156 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing at AIDS denialism

Along the lines of the ongoing ArbCom case on off-wiki canvassing, there has been a recent influx of editors at AIDS denialism and related topics. This thread on an AIDS-denialist message board may be a factor. Since this is not a heavily traveled area, a relatively small number of recruited agenda accounts can be quite disruptive. I'd like to request some admins to watchlist the article and keep an eye out or be a resource for dealing with issues that might arise in connection with the off-wiki canvassing. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Users attempting to abuse, game, or mis-use Wikipedia via this message board can be sanctioned per the precedent at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign#Sanctions, can they not? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so (and have acted along those lines in the past), but as I am involved with this article, I'd like outside admins to be aware. To be clear, I don't see anything particularly disruptive yet - just the usual soapboxing on the talk page. It's a request to shine a bit of light in this corner and just have people keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729

I'm having slight problems with this user. Recently I've removed the French Muslims category from the Franck Ribéry article as it was in clear violation of WP:BLP. The user reverted my edit and called me a vandal in the edit summary. I responded by leaving the user a warning and reverting his edit, pointing to WP:BLP in the edit summary. The user, however, reverted me again and left a copy of my warning on my user page.

According to WP:BLP: "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.",

so the category has to go, but I'm afraid I'm just gonna get yet another revert if I remove the category (might be worth mentioning that the user has received a 3RR warning before and is also, apparently, a suspected sockpuppet), so I'd appreciate a little bit of help here. Cheers! BanRay 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm game for a quick read, with a possible revert and I daresay a Talk page message to the user in question... ETA Done. Let's see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hope this helps BanRay 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tbrittreid/Ted Watson

I wanted to bring a growing problem to the attention of the folk here regarding an issue I am encountering on Doctor Fate. The user Tbrittreid (talk · contribs) (who signs his posts as "Ted Watson") is seeking to add ([176], [177], [178], [179]) synthesized material to the article, and is highly abrasive when our synthesis policy is pointed out. I also attempted to address this problem on his talk page([180]) after two specific attempts to readdress the problem after Tbrittreid's demeanor and comments seemed to take on a more offensive and abrasive tone. This does not appear to have assisted the user in being more polite, and in fact, the user has grown more uncivil.
I am unsure how to proceed without seeking to have the user blocked, and I was wondering if I could get some feedback and maybe some extra eyes on the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not the first time this editor has been reported to AN/I for exactly these sorts of issues. I left a warning on his user page regarding the edit warring. As to the abrasive tone, messages like this appear to fly in the face of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience with this editor where I tried to encourage him to be civil as gently as I could, but my efforts were rebuffed. The good news is that although he overtly rejected my advice, he did seem to edit a little less tendentiously for a while, so perhaps it has some effect. Bovlb (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your gentle encouragement to lighten up on the rhetoric resulted in the now archived Requesting update re: "Problem with Doctor (Doctor Who), where the editor in question demanded "disciplinary action" for the "extremely unethical misconduct" "as admins should know better, or they shouldn't be admins." --Kralizec! (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. He does seem to be convinced that admins meting out punishment is the only possible form of dispute resolution, doesn't he? Where do we go wrong with editors like this? Bovlb (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the eyes on the article, and the background on the user. Is further action required with the user, as Bovlb's past experiences seem to indicate that these civility issues are recurring. As I know from personal experience, most editors find it difficult to edit civilly and politely when facing this sort of abrasiveness. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

re User:Agent007ravi

Resolved

 – Deleted by East718.

I have noted my concern regarding the detail posted on this editors userpage here. I should like some opinion on whether publishing this detail is appropriate for a minor, or whether I am fussing over nothing. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A 10-year old publishing e-mail, AIM, etc? I'd say that not too smart to do. I do think your suggestion to his on the talk page was a good way to start though, hopefully he will remove it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a father of three, I would probably freak out if my kids posted that much info on themselves on the internet. Listing his email address does not bother me, but giving his exact birth date, weight, and town he lives in is just asking for trouble. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And it appears the page has been deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

East718 got it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairlight (group) , WP:BLP problem

Resolved

 – Issued 4im warning to editor who added info implicating a politician in illegal activity with an un-reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps trying to insert a smear-job and definitely non-WP:RS "source" claiming Strider, of the Fairlight group, is a high-ranking member of a political party in California (trying to keep it neutral/vague to avoid repeating BLP-violation here). Situation needs administrator help. DEFINITIVE WP:BLP violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.75.222 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Issued 4im warning to editor who added info implicating a politician in illegal activity with an un-reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There was absolutely no attempt made by the complaining editor to discuss or arrive at consensus regarding the quality of the source prior to the intervention initiated here. Looking at the article's history, it looks like one other editor originally referenced the same story, and both times that the story was removed, it was done by anons. Toddst1's reaction was to place a level 4 warning on my page, also with zero discussion, a move I find rather WP:UNCIVIL. The addition of the story has been characterized as a "smear-job" and otherwise defamatory content; in fact, the way that it was presented on the page was stated as a simple association between the group and the person in question. Now if it is the case that the source is not considered sufficiently reliable, that should have been brought up as an editorial issue, not administrator action prompted from what is likely a single person's objection to it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry, edit warring, religious categories and BLP

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)

Bomb "threat"

Resolved

 – non credible venting, IP blocked for a week. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[181] - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

non credible venting, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple vandalism should be reverted and the user warned. A new thread here for every "bomb microsoft" or "kill bill gates" edit is overkill. Nakon 00:12, 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 inflamatory and contains a serious acusation in the title. These kinds of acusations cannot be made without significant evidence and here the acusation only appears to be inflamatory.--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 comunication and the user is not asuming good faith.

I wouls also like to add that the user has added inflamatory pictures thier 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 inflamatory 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 diffrent 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)

Ongoing harassment by User:Libro0

User:Libro0 has been accusing me of being another user (often in a passive-aggressive way), engaging in generally uncivil activity and put this little gem on my talk page I did the pages as a scholarly pursuit. It was enjoyable. I have further content to submit from doing a great deal of research. I need your word that you will not revert my edits. Furthermore, if I correct something I would also appreciate it if you did not revert it, I consider that harrassement. [182] I have only made additions here and he/she seems to be taking deliberate action to harass me. He/she needs to be dealt with. Is there some sort of ignore user feature? --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that he considers his passive aggressive digs to be constructive dialog. It makes me think he is trying to play the system. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. In all honesty I felt we were having some pretty good dialogue. And then you came here?! I am trying very hard to work with you not against you. When you do this it looks like you don't want friends instead it looks like you just want to get rid of me. Libro0 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Need we say more? --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

'passive-aggressive', 'uncivil activity', 'harrassement'. These are extremely inaccurate and as I am quite calm and collected and as I said above makes your intent look malicious. Coming here puts your behavior under the microscope. It would be better to discuss things between ourselves instead of implicating yourself further. Libro0 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxalicious holocaust denial

This http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust.asp hoax is doing the rounds by email at the moment. May be worth pointing any clueless n00bs that way, if they make the obvious edits. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 6 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)