Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GDD1000

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:GDD1000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

GDD1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.149.73.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.41.187.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Domer48_'fenian' 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest first started causing major disruption on the Wikipedia article on his former regiment in April, such as attempting to remove negative information despite it being sourced by government reports. His first edits were as an IP, such as this at 15:39, 10 April 2008 and this at 15:41, 10 April 2008. The GDD1000 account was then created at 16:06, 10 April 2008 and proceeded to carry on editing in the same vein, for example this edit at 16:11, 10 April 2008. After causing large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on, GDD1000 stop editing in late May, see his talk page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#GDD1000, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#The Northern Ireland Troubles for further details.

Recently GDD1000 has been violating WP:SOCK by editing from the same IP address as in April, and continuing to add disupted information and very likely copyright violations which are currently being investigated, while not mentioning his account, see for example here and here. After various edits from the IP on July 29 the account of The Thunderer was created at 15:58, 29 July 2008, and carried on editing the UDR article in the same way.

When an editor has a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, it should not be permitted for them to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor.

And now we have edits like this which are a mockery of an encyclopedia, but I won't revert as yet because the whole article needs gutting of the crap that has been added over the last day or so so I'll do it when I have more time. This IP previously made this talk page edit and is clearly GDD1000 since he was the only person in dispute with myself and BigDunc at the time of the post. So we now have two different IPs and one account editing during the space of one day from this suspected abuser of sockpuppets, and behaviour such as this post-ArbCom has resulted in severe sanctions due to the correct zero tolerance approach to abusive sockpuppeteers.

Summary of evidence:

• 81.149.73.79 is obviously the IP that was used by GDD1000 in April, and has been editing the article recently.
• 82.41.187.226 was an IP being used by GDD1000 in May based on this talk page post and this admission, and has been editing the article recently.
• 82.41.187.226 made this edit, which The Thunderer took responsibility for in this edit so they are clearly the same person, who is also therefore 81.149.73.79 and GDD1000.
• Both IPs and The Thunderer were editing the article on 29 July, this is clearly not a permitted use of sockpuppets, especially considering the GDD1000 account is not being used.
• The accusations of sockpuppetry were met by responses of "stupid comments by some paranoid person" and "deleted stupid stuff - obviously a wind up", showing this person has no intention of being honest when confronted with evidence of his flagrant abuse of sockpuppets.

Comments

Traditional unionists opinion on evidence

You haven't actually demonstrated any "large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on". You have simply asserted that it is so, and given one or two examples of policy breeches in the early edit history of the GD1000 account. There are similarities in the edit histories of these editors, but no firm evidence, only speculation, that this is the same individual. There also seems to be no policy breeches by the IP and second registered account, and therefore no reason to file this report. Unless there is evidence to substantiate the claim of "large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on". There is no Prima facie case to answer.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment is also useful to take into consideration. I will make that user aware of this report.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If Scolaire's judgement is so relevant, you should also link to his comments about GDD1000's disruption and POV pushing here. Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which also deals with your "goading" and other incivility very well. It demonstrates why, if this is the same user, and there is no evidence that it is, this report could be seen as malicious.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Except there is evidence, as the IP is editing from the same IP which GDD1000 was clearly editing from back in April, which is also a static IP. Then lo and behold shortly after you recommend the IP creates an account, the new account appears making the same type of edits to the article. If the person dealing with this is not convinced, we can always have a checkuser to prove the deception which is apparent to me. Domer48_'fenian' 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A check user here would be a clear breach of privacy. So a user recommends to an IP that they create an account and.........they do it.....that's clearly evidence of socking.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser would not be a breach of privacy, as accounts can be checked. Who said anything about the IP? Rather than come clean, the suspected socks have gone into denial, so assuming I'm right the deception is clear for everyone to see. Domer48_'fenian' 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a privacy policy round here you know, it can't be breeched on a whim from a user who has repeatedly been accused of bullying and goading the user under suspicion.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the IP is being confirmed as the same editor by checkuser there is no breach of the privacy policy. We don't need a checkuser to compare the IP to GDD1000, it's obvious from the edits from April it is him. Domer48_'fenian' 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is your evidence? Also, a checkuser itself would be a breech of privacy.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is listed above, oddly enough in the section titled "Evidence". As checkusers will not normally comment on IPs, there will be no violation of the privacy policy. Your relentless mentioning of it leads me to believe that you know my suspicions are right and are trying to subvert this report. Domer48_'fenian' 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than trying to protect another user from your harassment? I suppose I'd see it that way too if it were me.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to make sockpuppet reports when they believe there is abuse of the system, doing so by the book through the right channels is not harassment. Domer48_'fenian' 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have failed to demonstrate a breech of the rules. That has not been forthcoming in your evidence or this discussion.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". Domer48_'fenian' 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you're right that this is the same user, we have a pattern of behaviour that "appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.". Thus a checkuser that revealed that this user was linked (which there is no sound evidence to suggest that it is), it would simply allow you to continue to "bully" and "goad" that user.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Traditional unionist's position: If this account is a new incarnation of the old, there is nothing in policy to prevent this. Indeed policy states: "Clean start under a new name If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Discontinuing the old account means specifically that the old account is not used for editing ever again. If the old account is later used in addition to a new account after supposedly being discontinued, then it has not been discontinued and would fall under the policy for alternative accounts, above. When an account is discontinued, it is recommended that the old account be noted on its user page as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet." With Domer's already noted incivility and border line harassment of GDD1000 there is no reason to follow up this report, indeed doing so would be a breech of policy in my opinion. Domer's general behaviour on WP is something which must be looked at, with this report being another worrying development. I'm not the most impartial editor in the world, and I tend to lose my head in a dispute and edit warring results, but this level of incivility is far more damaging to the project, and I hope that others can see this.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The new accounts are being used abusively, simply by virtue of there being more than one. The new accounts have not made a clean start. The same problems still persist - unsourced additions, POV additions and copyright violations. You appear to be labouring under the impression that GDD1000 will be editing under any' account name following the conclusion of this case, I consider the approach taken so far with abusive sockpuppetry on Troubles articles combined with ongoing copyright problems that place Wikipedia in legal jeapordy that this is an unlikely outcome. Domer48_'fenian' 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the accounts are being used to game 3RR, to commit !vote fraud, or actually commit vandalism, I don't see that there's much to do here. GDD1000 hasn't edited since June, so there's little point blocking that account. A CU would prove whether the IPs and The Thunderer are the same (the 81.x.x.x is a static IP address by the way, whilst the other one is dynamic), but I can't see much more to do than a warning to always log in would be the thing to do here. (I'm just wondering if the IP is the same editor logging in from a work or other not-at-home address as well - some people don't like to login on shared computers). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor is abusing sockpuppets to carry on biased POV editing and adding copyright violations with several brand new accounts, after doing it before and getting himself in hot water. There is a zero tolerance approach to such behaviour in articles related to the Troubles, as any editor who had been here more than a month would realise. Also sockpuppetry has been denied by the accounts, when it is obvious. Domer48_'fenian' 21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no interleaving, though - neither of the accounts or the IPs have been editing Ulster Defence Regiment at the same time. It's been the 81 IP, followed by GDD1000, then the 81 IP again, then the 82 IP, then The Thunderer. They similarly aren't gaming the system by using multiple accounts. Whilst they might clearly be the same person, and should be reminded to log in, they aren't really breaking WP:SOCK. They might be editing disruptively, breaking copyright, or not following NPOV, but this isn't the venue for that. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Which part of WP:SOCK do you think they are complying with? Bearing in mind they have denied sockpuppetry. You also fail to note that sockpuppetry and Troubles articles don't mix too well. Domer48_'fenian' 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the fact that there is no rule breaking here. You also fail to understand tat any new account may be an attempt to evade your persistent harassment. I'd be interested in your opinion on that Wheelchair Epidemic.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think more to the point is, what action do you require? If they are indeed the same editor, since they haven't actually been gaming the system with multiple accounts, the only thing to do is (a) tell the editor to stick to one of the two accounts (possibly one could be blocked), and (b) warn the editor to log in with the remaining account. The actual problems (NPOV, copyright, etc) with the user(s) editing patterns needs to be dealt with elsewhere, though - possibly through The Troubles probation if necessary. This, however, makes a number of good points also, as Traditional Unionist has mentioned. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of three socks is in itself abusive, especially when denying it. The outcome of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster may be of interest to you TU. Domer48_'fenian' 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, the differences show why this instance is not a rule break. In that instance socks were used simultaneously, switching from one to another to disrupt and make discussions appear multi faceted when the same user was commenting multiple times. All the evidence here points to a user harassed off wikipedia by you attempting to avoid, not the rules, but you in order to fo some editing rather than suffer the kind of abuse you gave him before.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with your ilk is futile. At a loss as to how to defend your fellow traveller, you have continuously resorted to personal attacks. As a self confessed Ulster Unionist, your defence of the self confessed member of UDR is not surprising, despite the overwhelming evidence. Though this collusion was once common it is satisfying to note that both of these groups are now but a distant memory. I therefore do not feel the need to respond to your personal attacks, and I’m more than happy to leave it to the Admin’s. Were reasonable discussion has failed, I see no positive outcome from feeding you anymore. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

you should leave it to the admins. So far thy have seen this report for what it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a mini-timeline will help here:

• 81.149.73.79 was used from 24 July to 15:45, 29 July 2008.
• The Thunderer was used from 16:19, 29 July 2008 to 18:36, 29 July 2008, and denied sockpuppetry at 18:12, 29 July 2008
• 81.149.73.79 was used to deny sockpuppetry at 18:40, 29 July 2008, in addition to earlier comments pretending to be a new user
• The Thunderer was used from 18:47, 29 July 2008 to 19:38, 29 July 2008
• 82.41.187.226 was used from 21:03, 29 July 2008 to 23:37, 29 July 2008, and the use of this IP was only admitted after it was added to this report.
• The Thunderer then takes over again.

So you're got repeated swapping between IPs and the account while denying sockpuppetry, while still having an unused account with a long record of disruption. That is not covered by WP:SOCK, it's a classic case of avoiding scrutiny. Also I will not stand for the bully boy tactics being used here by TU, constant unfounded accusations of tag teams and no assumption of good faith among his campaign of harrasment. BigDunc^Talk 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Who mentioned tag teams Dunc? That's a bid Freudian if you ask me. Domer's record of harassment of of GDD1000 is documented and noted by more than just me. The evidence does seem to point to this being the same person, and that this pweson was trying to avoid the attention of a harassment campaign.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

No clear-cut evidence of abuse. Sorry. Enigma ^message 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you aren't an admin, you aren't familiar with the Troubles articles and the approach taken to sockpuppetry with them, and you aren't familiar with the history of this editor. Therefore I am re-opening this pending a proper conclusion after discussion with editors and admins familiar with this, and not simply editors like Traditional unionist who have a vested interest in subverting this discussion for his own benefit. I will summarise the abuse, complete with excerpts from policy:

• "While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". As Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#GDD1000 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#The Northern Ireland Troubles show, there are admins and other editors who have a legitimate interest in reviewing this editors contributions, given his history of biased POV editing and adding copyright violations, one archive explicity says that if he returns to editing after chucking his toys out of the pram when his copyright violations were removed the situation will need to be addressed. Therefore to pretend to be a brand new editor, sorry three brand new editors, is an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

• "Clean start under a new name" does not apply. "If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner". Clean and honest? Well he's immediately lied about his sockpuppetry. His conduct is as appalling as ever, and his accounts are not being used in a good manner. "I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered". Has he changed his behaviour and the articles he works on? He's editing the same articles, with the same (copy and paste!) writing style and appalling formatting, and he's still editing problematically. Then when spotted as an obvious sock, he denied it. What's that about "perceived concealment" again?

• See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank for a similar situation. An editor under scrutiny for problematic editing cannot simply use a new account and carry on the same problematic editing with a clean slate, while pretending to be someone else. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster as well. An editor cannot use three different accounts for no obvious reason, especially in areas that have seen abtritation cases and where the edits being made are problematic, especially if sockpuppetry is being denied.

So, now the abuse has been made clear, I look forward to a discussion with admins and experienced editors (preferably ones without half a dozen blocks for edit warring) familiar with the problems caused on Troubles articles to date, and how this should be dealt with. BigDunc^Talk 12:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply from the accused

Wikipedia does not require anyone to log in using an account name to make edits. Anyone who does have an account isn't obliged to use it and may continue to make edits from any number of IP addresses which may or may not be registered to an ISP belonging to that user, (Internet cafes, hotel or airport facilities etc). Provided these edits are not being used to disrupt Wikipedia or to manipulate the outcome of a discussion or vote they do not constitute abuse of Wikipedia. I note that the account GDD1000 has not been used since 27/5/08. My contributions did not commence until 29/7/08. Whether I chose to make edits or other posts using IP addresses is of no concern to anyone. Should I choose in the future to make edits using IP addresses, whether those be real or disguised (using a proxy) is likewise of no concern to anyone, provided those posts are made in good faith.

• As posted on the talkpage of BigDunc^Talk yesterday, it is to be noted that the Ulster Defence Regiment page has been enhanced by encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations. I notice that during the same period the tag team which has made this frivolous complaint has not made any contributions to the article, nor have they made any constructive suggestions on the article talk page or been helpful in any way to me or any other contributor to that page. In fact the edit war forced on the page yesterday by BigDunc^Talk was a deliberate attempt to subvert information which was a direct lift, and linked to the page at Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 and has been unchallenged since 2006, nor has it been challenged on that page to date, but this user made a decision that it would be modified on the Ulster Defence Regiment page to discredit the information provided by the inline references and Wikipedia quote.
• During the time this has been going on neither I, the user GDD1000, or any IP address listed above has made any attempt to disrupt any page or influence any discussion or vote on Wikipedia. I understand it is my choice as to which articles I edit on Wikipedia and if I choose to only edit the Ulster Defence Regiment page then that is a matter for me alone. I am not a sockpuppet for anyone and no-one is a sockpuppet for me. I am confident that no person in a position of responsibility on Wikipedia will find any evidence of wrongdoing on my part.
• As for "checkuser" - in the absence of any wrongdoing my identity is to remain private. This mischievous complaint starts with the words Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest. This indicates to me that the person who posted it wishes to have some knowledge of individual editors in order to discredit posts they may make which disagree with his/her own political or personal views and is prepared to use such knowledge to intimidate, bully, harrass or pressure another person to prevent them from expressing a contrary opinion. I have no wish to be subjected to this type of behaviour.The Thunderer 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps interested parties may care to examine MV_Princess_Victoria, another article I have edited. I'm sure there's some mischief or harm can be done there by criticising the sources, the copyright on the pictures, the point of view or whatever. In the absence of the tag team being unable to cause edit warring at the Ulster Defence Regiment page I'm sure they can have fun tearing another page to pieces. Perhaps they can find good reason to remove a lot of things and leave the page as bare and uninteresting as it was before I edited it. The Thunderer (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And you're an editor with a noted history of harassment. Should you b allowed to use the SOCK reports to seek to out an edotir who is hiding from you rather than scrutiny?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What are these guys smoking? I can see I've got a man here who signs himself as Fenian and at the same time accuses someone else of pushing a conflict of interest. The mind boggles, it really does. The fact remains that I have no history of any violations of any code, rule or guideline on Wikipedia. A short time spent reading some of the articles edited by the Domer/BigDunc tag team does reveal quite a lot of interesting items. Very heavily involved in editing and maintaining anti-British articles concerning the Irish Troubles. Several other names come up too and I suppose it won't be long until we see them supporting this complaint and making censorship edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. It really does need to be taken on board by the administration that any rabid Irish bigot is going to have very strong views on information contained within pages on Wikipedia related to Ireland which contain any kind of information which seems to show the Northern Ireland government, its security forces, the Westminster goverment and the British armed forces, ever did anything contructive or positive in Ireland. This article The_Troubles_in_Portadown is a perfect example. One of the biggest killing areas in the entire troubles and what is listed - the deaths of three poor Roman Catholics! I see similar examples of this involving any and every ethnic conflict currently listed on Wikipedia. It would be very easy to get sucked into this type of ethnic bigotry and start editing articles in a biased manner. However: if the tag team are so determined to address the balance of neutrality why don't they use their superb knowledge and interest in all matters Irish to edit these articles to present a non-biased view? I prefer to rely on the evidence of the books in my possession and other interesting and reliable links on the internet. Of course those books are going to say the Provisional IRA were the enemy in the Northern Ireland Troubles and that they killed most of the Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers and civilians who died. They're also going to say that the minority community in Northern Ireland were most associated with the IRA. Facts of life I'm afraid. I note a long discussion somewhere else where the tag team objected to an edit made by GDD1000 because he was crass enough to add information in the Ulster Defence Regiment page that "UDR soldiers were disabled in service". How neutral is that? As for this complaint: it remains that there has been no abuse of an account. All of the posts made by myself and the IP addresses listed by DomerFenian and his tag team partner BigDunc are perfectly legitimate as far as I can see. There is no apparant attempt to subvert any discussion or sway any vote. It appears to me as an onlooker that this particular complaint falls into the category of Weasel word "ambiguous and cannot be substantiated by facts" and its aim is to remove someone from the posting arena who seems to be making the Ulster Defence Regiment respectable. I say again that my edits have contributed encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations. What has the complainer and his tag team contributed?The Thunderer (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from User:Alison

Okay, checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry having taking place here. There is nobody here abusing multiple accounts. Seriously. What I'd like to see right now is that everyone please stand down and leave everyone else alone. We've an encyclopedia to write here and this hounding of editors is not helping matters. And Thunderer, terms like "rabid Irish bigot" are not constructive in any way whatsoever, so please don't do that.

I'm recommending this SSP case be closed - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alson. Thank you for your judgement. My comment "rabid Irish bigot" wasn't directed at anyone but it's very much a question of "if the cap fits - wear it!" I have no problem at all being civil but when I see that this complaint started with the words, Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest I found myself wondering what kind of madhouse Wikipedia is. That type of disinformation is harrassment, designed to belittle a user and to render his/her input of less value than it is - propaganda in other words. Why should it be allowed for someone who has been editing on Wikipedia since 7th February 2007, and who is apparantly so adept at pointing out the rules to others, to engage in such incivility towards another user? Should this DomerFenian chap not be admonished? Reading through the dicussion on the UDR page one can see how DomerFenian and his tag team partners made it so difficult to edit the article that user GDD1000 gave up and stopped posting to Wikipedia? Even at one point trashing the other user's special work page without so much as trying to educate him/her on why they were able to do it. You have here several individuals who, while contributing nothing to the article in question, tried to prevent someone else from doing so. I believe this is called an "ownership" issue? Then we get this frivolous complaint which was spotted as false almost from the outset. I believe a think-tank should be set up to investigate the edit warring caused by this multiple tag team and DomerFenian in particular. Unless something is done to rein people like this in then all the articles on Ireland will contain a clever Republican bias which will defeat what I perceive the purpose of this online encyclopedia to be. Of course the same should apply to anyone who pushes an opposing (Loyalist) POV only. Can you suggest anything?The Thunderer (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---