Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kylu (talk | contribs)
9,405 edits
→User:Sfan00 IMG: don't canvass please.
Line 1,369: Line 1,369:
In many cases they were reviewd rather qucilay when there were objections. [[User:Sfan00 IMG|Sfan00 IMG]] ([[User talk:Sfan00 IMG|talk]]) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In many cases they were reviewd rather qucilay when there were objections. [[User:Sfan00 IMG|Sfan00 IMG]] ([[User talk:Sfan00 IMG|talk]]) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think the B word is constructive here, Rschen. Just letting any closing admins know, Sfan00 IMG is a legit sock of [[User:ShakespeareFan00]]. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]]</i></sup></font> 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think the B word is constructive here, Rschen. Just letting any closing admins know, Sfan00 IMG is a legit sock of [[User:ShakespeareFan00]]. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]]</i></sup></font> 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
::As a minor note, it'd be nice if we could avoid requesting "backup" from IRC. It's bad form to [[WP:CANVASS|canvass for support]]. To nobody in particular. :) [[User:Kylu|Kylu]] ([[User talk:Kylu|talk]]) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Fru23]] again ==
== [[User:Fru23]] again ==

Revision as of 02:54, 16 November 2008

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Disruptive school project?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Identification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal?

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

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

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

    If No then there is no difference form now.

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

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

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

    • It needn't be as complicated as an extra step. Just adding some text to what's already on account creation page would help. e.g.
    School and college projects
    If you are creating an account as part of a school or university project, please read Wikipedia:School and university projects first.
    Perhaps this is something for Village Pump proposals? Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good idea to me, since a lack of awareness of the help available (and Wikipedia's editing protocols) seems to be the real issue. EyeSerenetalk 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the tiny fraction of accounts involved I doubt the added interface cruft could be justified.Geni 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Split

    This entire discussion needs to be split off onto a different page so that discussions, and work, can continue unhindered. Right now there's the possibility of archival.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit more

    I think that this isn't entirely resolved, because there are some valid concerns about our reaction to this type of school project. Obviously organized editing by groups of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia norms can have a disruptive effect of sorts on the articles and editors effected - but I'm not sure that our response, which is to limit the disruption by limiting the editing of these students, is the right approach. Students assigned to edit Wikipedia may be positive disruptions - an opportunity attached to a little chaos, as opposed to a detrimental phenomena we need to control. I think the folks commenting in this thread need to think a bit more, as I will be doing, about how we can encourage and channel such efforts without putting them off Wikipedia altogether (as we appear to have done in this case). Avruch T 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there are a couple of main issues at play here:
    1. Personally-identifying information was disclosed without informed consent. The new editors were clearly not made aware of our policies and guidelines nor their rights of anonymity, which we hold highly. A bunch of accounts were created with the real last names of students as well as identifying information about where they go to school. Undoing this requires mass renaming and a temporary increase in manpower on our part.
    2. There was no option to opt out. — The new editors, while potentially valuable, were required to edit and did not arrive on their own volition. It's also possible that WP:BEANS would work in reverse; for, if you were forced to edit Wikipedia, how much would you really want to edit it in your non-forced free time? I'm not sure about most people, but it would definitely dissuade me from doing so.
    3. We were blind, with no communication beforehand. Much like a field trip to a local library, we, too, can be overwhelmed temporarily by an influx of a large group of people acting as one, and if that group inadvertently causes harm, it still does take manpower to undo it. Should there have been communication beforehand, it would have been truly easy to prepare both us and the students for a great experience on wikipedia. Also similarly to a library, if a member of the group is causing trouble, we really need to be able to find the person in charge (e.g., the professor) so that we can help prevent the behavior from continuing. That way, if there's one person causing disruption, the whole group doesn't have to suffer when we panic and can't find someone to stop it.
    4. They moved our cheese, and like most humans, Wikipedia's community responds to abrupt novelty with hesitation and rejection. Predictably, this caused us to respond with alarm. The university involved would be equally surprised and rejecting of Wikipedia's editors, en masse, coming to their university and changing things in a coordinated fashion. For the university, it would be unprecedented, but on here, it has the effect of tripping our troublemaker radar, since we frequently have problems with editors attacking certain articles using different usernames. Similarly, the -229 suffix also makes us default to assuming they're "evil sockpuppets" (even though they're not), since a lot of our troublemakers like to make similar/themed usernames when causing a ruckus.
    In order to make future interactions with schools more productive, I'd actually suggest some sort of an outreach program to facilitate communication with schools to harness the awesome power of their students in a safe, enjoyable, and consensual manner. At the very least, it would be nice if they just gave us a heads up beforehand. We're not gonna say no. :) --slakr\ talk / 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is if we contact unis en mass with "if you are planning to do something related to wikipedia please see the Wikipedia:School and university project first" it is likely to be ignored. The source of the projects is too unpredictable to reach out to through any obvious route. In adition universities have come up with solid projects of their own. For example by haveing multiple students work on requested articles releated to their course subject.Geni 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with slakr's points 1-4. It's more than just an annoying disruption. Ill-prepared student projects can and often do result in copyvio, original research, lack of references, etc. etc. and the disruption of stable articles, especially when they start edit -warring to preserve their "assignment". Like Geni, though, I doubt that a mass-communication to universities would have any effect. I guess the best way we can handle it at the moment, if there is no prior communication from the instructor, is to try to do communicate (nicely) via the individual talk pages of the students and try to trace the school involved. That is of course very time-consuming. While I have every sympathy for the students who get caught up in this stuff I have no sympathy whatsoever for the instructors who (dis)organize projects like this one. Many school projects are well thought out and a valuable contribution both to WP and the students. But there are others where I'm afraid the instructors are just looking for a way to make their teaching/assessment process look "innovative" without having to put in the actual work themselves to make it a success or liasing with the community they're using. Organizing a WP academic project properly so that it provides a postive learning experience for the students actually takes far more work and instructor input than the "old-fashioned" term-paper slog. (I'm speaking as a retired academic here.)
    I also question the validity of that kind of assessment when it simply involves pasting their essays straight from the word processor onto WP and disappearing. The whole point of a good academic essay is that it is not only well referenced to a wide range of reading but shows original thought, synthesis of ideas and a well-argued point of view - the latter three entirely inappropriate on WP. The "hit and run" approach also destroys any possibility of learning about communication and cooperation in a new medium. A great learning opportunity is lost if neither the students nor their instructors actively interact with that medium and reflect on that interaction. There was one project last May where the instructor was finally located and appeared here to say that he couldn't care less if the articles his students uploaded got deleted, but we were told to hold off even editing them until he had a chance to mark them all, i.e. in 10 days. Quite a few of us did as much as we could to advise the students and explain to them what was happening and why. At least that instructor had set up a very rudimentary project page which we developed, although he did not interact on it at all.
    Maybe this discussion could be usefully moved to or continued at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects? Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are essentially arguing for is a Wikipedia where only contributions from experienced editors are welcomed. My argument, conversely, is that we typically welcome edits and articles from any random IP editor anywhere in the world - and why should we treat university students differently? I assure you I understand why people get upset with these projects (this is the third such incident I've been involved in, including the global econ incident you note above), but I think that we could usefully modify our response to encourage, rather than discourage, these types of projects while channeling student contributions in ways to make them more constructive. I can't speak to the verbal instructions or oversight provided in the above course, but having read the text of the assignment it definitely was not "paste in your essay."
    Part of the problem we're having in this situation is the in some respects condescending attitude of Wikipedia editors towards these academics who are, it has to be recognized, doing very much what we would like them to do - adding content to Wikipedia, and encouraging students to understand and be involved in our projects. At the Foundation level, we spend money and have staff devoted to just this sort of endeavour - but when it gets to AN/I, we insult the students and course instructors directly, we demean their efforts and we treat them like organized vandals. We look bad, we look like we don't understand why we're here or what the founding principles of this project are, and we turn away people in academia who should be our allies. Avruch T 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "What you are essentially arguing for is a Wikipedia where only contributions from experienced editors are welcomed." No, I'm not arguing for that at all, and certainly not in the case of the students. I'm arguing for teachers who plan to use Wikipedia like this to first thoroughly familiarize themselves with Wikipedia before they require their students to start editing en masse in a relatively short time period. At the bare minimum, they should thoroughly familiarize themselves with privacy issues, content policies, and any existing Wikipedia Projects in the area(s) where they have assigned their students to edit, and preferably make contact with those projects. They should also monitor their students' contributions and the talk pages of the articles being edited and make sure that they themselves can be easily contacted, preferably by signing on to Wikipedia:School and university projects. This can only benefit the students and vastly improves their learning experience here. I see nothing in that which goes against the Foundation's goals. Cooperation is just that, a two-way street. These issues only come to AN/I when the instructor is essentially invisible. Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming to this discussion late (but I just finished reading it all), I think the issue is sloppy instruction. As a former professor (and perhaps a professor again if I'm dismissed from my administrative post), I know the seduction of shortcuts, have taken some myself, and have known colleagues that spent most of their careers on the shortcut path. At best, these instructional shortcuts cheat the students, and only a little; many of us could write treatises on what happens at worst. I did a Wikipedia assignment in a course in the spring of 2006, with a very small number of students, editing a very narrow topic (California native plants), and very limited goals. It still turned out to be problematic (one student was almost immediately banned, because he made a bonehead mistake and happened to have the same name as a celebrity, which he used as his user name, which suggested to an admin that he was a vandal), and I'm not sure I'd do it again. But it's not the students' fault. It's well established what students will do under coercion and peer pressure. I agree that outreach to instructors is important, especially to let them know that Wikipedia is a real-life project, with real people, real goals, and a work flow that evolves and improves as a result of great amounts of effort.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think that's a little unfair. Vandals etc aside, most of us take great care to treat all new editors as though they're here in good faith to help build our encyclopedia. However, because they've chosen to be part of our endeavour, most new editors are also open to communication. That last is the crucial point of departure we've been seeing from some of these academic assignments. Neither instructors nor students have been communicating with the Wikipedia community, either before, during or after their assignments, because they've been approaching Wikipedia with a different mindset and for different reasons than most new editors. Like Voceditenore, I'm not blaming the students for this. Their instructors need to be familiar with Wikipedia, and how it can (and can't) be used for our mutual benefit, before they let their classes loose. It's rather unjust to characterise the understandably irritated response provoked from the Wikipedia community as 'condescending'; when we come across editors who are not editing within our policies, and don't respond to attempts to communicate and educate, we all know what the eventual result has to be. I fully agree with your point about "channelling student contributions in ways to make them more constructive"... but this is next to impossible when one can't get a response.
    In the best cases, such as some of the projects I've linked above, we're left with a whole slew of Good and Featured content that didn't exist before, and even if the students never return, Wikipedia is better for their having been here. In the worst cases we're left with a huge cleanup job, pissed-off editors, and lots of wasted time and effort all round. Maybe it all balances out in the end, but I don't feel it's too unreasonable for us to expect to be treated with a little respect and forethought when these assignments are set. EyeSerenetalk 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think its an unfair characterisation, personally. I wouldn't describe all or even most of the reactions as condescending, of course - perhaps I didn't qualify it enough to be clear, but I don't want to criticize people personally. I do think that some comments about the professional and intellectual rigor of the students, courses and instructors are ill-advised. I also think that we sometimes respond to new editors who have limited familiarity with Wikipedia editing norms as though such a lack is a character flaw. I should repeat that I completely understand why these projects are often frustrating, and I don't want to be seen as criticising all reactions in this thread or elsewhere. But we should be mindful that our collective response to this event has been received quite negatively by three experienced lecturers on two continents, and we shouldn't dismiss the problem that this outcome presents to Wikipedia.
    My hope is that we can adjust our responses, individually and systematically, to more directly reflect what we hope to be - an open, participatory project devoted to building a free encyclopedia with as much help as we can get. Realistically, our ability to influence the course and assignment design for university projects is essentially nil. What we can influence, though, is how we deal with and channel these projects taking their likely flaws into account. Our baseline assumption should be that these projects present a number of challenges to us, and our "normal reaction" should focus on how to work with these projects to preserve and improve their contributions and offer these students and lecturers a positive image of Wikimedia projects. When we freely discuss blocking good faith contributors because they are organized in a class, we harm Wikipedia more than we help it. Avruch T 16:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is bringing us back to this communication issue. I agree with everything you've written about making Wikipedia a welcoming place for all editors, but we can only help editors if they respond to being contacted, and we can only work with their instructors if they let us know what they're doing. They in turn will only do this if they're aware of how (and why) to do so, which implies a reasonable degree of familiarity with Wikipedia. It's only the problem projects that end up on ANI, and these have so far been those where, as mentioned above, the instructor clearly hasn't had sufficient familiarity, and hasn't provided enough guidance or supervision to ensure their students are fully equipped for a sortie out of their insulated academic environment and into this rather exposed and noisy one. I agree that there's never a need for us to be impolite about it, but we also need to be able to deal with these worst-case scenarios - which may indeed mean, as a last resort, using the tools at our disposal to prevent damage and disruption to the work of our volunteer editing community. EyeSerenetalk 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion (again) Given that potentially problematic projects are going to be the ones where the instructors are not thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia and don't know how to communicate with editors who can given them help and advice, I honestly think that much more of an effort has to be made to alert them to the existence of Wikipedia:School and university projects. It's currently very hard to find. Many experienced editors don't even know about it.
    In my view, making that project as accessible as possible to instructors is absolutely key if Wikipedia is really serious about encouraging and helping both the teachers and their students. My suggestion of adding a link to it on the account creation page was dismissed above as adding 'unjustified cruft' to the interface. But what about at least putting it on both these pages:
    At Wikipedia:Questions, where this could be added under How to use Wikipedia:
    At Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, where this could be added to the four other italicized links at the top of the page:
    For advice on using Wikipedia as a class project see, School and university projects.
    OK so some instructors might still miss it, but it could catch quite a few of them (and their students). If we don't make that page more accessible, we're going to be constantly engaged in post hoc damage control. You can't "channel student contributions in ways to make them more constructive" if they and their instructors remain invisibile and isolated until their editing has become sufficiently problematic to end up on AN/I, and frankly, by then it's too late to have provided the students with good learning experience here. I'm frankly amazed that the Foundation is spending money on and has staff devoted to "reaching out to school projects", but has never considered something as simple as adding a few extra links to help those schools who arrive here by other means. Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're spot on in my view. All the advice in the world is no good if no-one knows it's there. Personally I don't have a problem with something on the account creation page - although it's true it might only apply to a tiny fraction of accounts, I think the disproportionate damage caused (both to Wikipedia itself and our image in academia) when things go all pear-shaped justifies the added 'cruft'. If not there though, I'd say those other pages are a decent compromise. EyeSerenetalk 16:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ACORN again. This needs to finally stop.

    Resolved
     – Akhilleus blocked sockpuppet accounts - Its now...calm!

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

    Overview

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

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

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

    Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comments

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

    By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, "Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?" GoodDamon has already made that suggestion on WB's User Talk page. [1] I'm sure that some who read this are getting tired of seeing the same names on all of these incident reports. I encourage you to fight the urge to "just ban them all" and examine the evidence. Remember that WP:SSP says, "Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other." The editors that LotLE and GoodDamon are complaining about are regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above comment by 209.221.240.193 is a confirmed sock of banned user BryanfromPalatine whose extensive career can be read about here [[2]]. It may be of interest to people who know more than me about these matters. The sock notice on that IP userpage was recently removed. I put it back. Someone using that IP was very angry at me on that talk page for restoring it. This IP seems well versed with the goings on of the Acorn talk page despite never having edited there. regardsBali ultimate (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very angry"? A little bit annoyed, perhaps. The sock notice is from December 2006, and this is an IP address shared by over 17,000 people, so it does seem inappropriate to me. A review of the many links above that GoodDamon has posted, and the recent editing history of the article Talk page and your User Talk pages, reveals that the people he complains about have been engaged in content disputes not only with him and with LotLE, but also with you. So my earlier remark about spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failing to mention mitigating evidence applies to you as well. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been wondering about these accounts' possible relationship to BryanFromPalatine. I wouldn't be too surprised if 300wacker, WorkerBee74, and K4T were all BryanFromPalatine socks; even if they aren't, each account has run afoul of many policies, including WP:BATTLE, and I see no reason to keep any of them around. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that 300wacker and K4T have recently returned from blocks, and WB is currently blocked. If any of you can post any diffs from any of them since returning from their blocks that violate Wikipedia policy, then I'd support indef blocks for those offenders. But when following K4T's contribs around, I happened to find this little gem at User talk:MastCell by an uninvolved admin, User:EdJohnston: "Nobody asked my opinion, but since ACORN is still full-protected until 15 November, I don't see any urgency. Though Kossack4Truth has shown up on the article's talk page, due to the protection he can't do anything to the article. My personal opinion is that further misbehavior by K4T should lead to an indef. Since returning from his block all he has done is express his curiously emphatic views at the ACORN talk page, and make a few innocuous edits here and there."[3] With that unbiased and uninvolved admin's opinion in hand, let's insist on proof of real policy violations before we go off blocking people. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edjohnston made that comment on November 9th, the day K4T's block ended. Since, on the Acorn talk page, k4t has acted on behalf of banned user (and suspected related sock) workerbee; has moved around other editors comments in, to me at least, a confusing manner (he also doesn't leave edit summaries); he has declared consensus prematurely, and sought insertion of contested information into the article by admins despite being told there was in fact no consensus; refered to the arguments of those disagreeing as "being shot down in flames"; characterized the arguments of others in a content dispute as "bogus" and "tendentious;" called those who pointed out he may be in violation of his Obama-related article topic ban as "dicks;" said he was at the talk page to rescue the article from "its current fucked up condition;" characterizes wording prefered by other editors as "weaseling" and "parsing;" and described other editors efforts as "tendentious" at least 5 separate times in one talk page commentary alone. Again, that's in two days alone. He's been a busy boy.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to sit this one out so I'll just add this diff without comment for now.[4] Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wikidemon, I confess. I was advising people having disputes with you to "Be extremely polite and use Wikipedia policies against" you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You were advising an editor on the verge of a block for edit warring, incivility, etc. - in a thread about his disruption of the Obama talk page - to "use Wikipedia policies against them" and contact you off-Wiki about it. Them, being "this group of editors", a cabal who you imagine to be conspiring by email "to file complaints and get us blocked and topic banned" --i.e. me. That looks like a violation of the Obama topic ban, and also canvassing someone to wikigame.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being polite, and encouraging someone on the verge of a block to obey the rules and be polite. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By mucking about Barack Obama in violation of a topic ban to recruit an editor to do battle against me? Combined with your comments below, and directly to that editor, regarding my supposedly conspiring against you, I don't think so.Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes! I see that Kossack4truth has edited the Talk page of ACORN 22 times in the last two days, and is now trying to declare victory in a poll where the count of votes may influence the outcome of an {{editprotected}} request. He has been moving comments around on the Talk page. My opinion has changed, and I would now Support a topic ban of K4T from both the ACORN article and its Talk page. Since we are still not clear whether he is a sock, and he creates a large POV wake wherever he goes, an extremely careful participation on Talk would be excused. No way is this behavior acceptable. I assume that K4T's interest in ACORN is due to the Obama connection, but that would be tolerable if he stayed within limits. He has not. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now noticing that I had proposed any further misbehavior should result in an indef, and this is misbehavior, I now recommend an indef block for User:Kossack4Truth. (He is one of those 'last chance' guys, where people had proposed to offer him one more chance. I think he just used it up). EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind if I say something, Ed? Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Consensus has already been allowed an enormous amount of time to develop for this proposed edit: 11 days. Wikidemon has !voted in favor of it. DigitalNinja !voted in favor of it. GoodDamon also !voted in favor of it at first. It had a 9-3 majority until GoodDamon changed his !vote. As I said on the article Talk page, I've never seen an edit that was more thoroughly discussed, vetted, masticated and ruminated. Three pages of archives have been created to accommodate this discussion of One. Freakin. Edit. What we have here is two editors, LotLE and Bali ultimate, who are obstructing the formation of consensus on the page. Constant baiting and provocation, in the form of false accusations of sockpuppetry, false charges of misrepresentation of sources, nitpicking about the tense of verbs in a quotation from a reliable source (for the love of Gaia), and generally mean-spirited and uncooperative behavior are their hallmark.
    On the Talk page of a far more high-profile article with dozens of participants, Wikidemon has moved entire sections around, closing and archiving discussions prematurely. No repercussions for Wikidemon. I'm just trying to move the process along by following his example. Regarding the use of the word "dicks," I was directing these editors' attention to WP:DBAD, which is enshrined in Wikipedia lore. (Notice how Bali ultimate mentioned "dicks" without mentioning WP:DBAD. "Spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failure to mention mitigating circumstances." Spot on, I'd say.)
    I transcluded WB74's !vote because, months ago, User:Noroton was kind enough to transclude mine. There were no objections at that time.
    Otherwise, I have consistently referred to edits, not editors, unlike the complaining editors here who are going out of their way to provoke us. I will also point out that MastCell, the admin who has volunteered as parole officer on this topic ban, specifically authorized me to edit ACORN; and despite my repeated posting of MastCell's authorizing diff on the article's Talk page,[5] these people relentlessly repeated that I had no right to edit there. Consider the poisonous environment these people have created. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, brother. Not again. It always ends up with some accusation against me for being on troll patrol. Wikidemon (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was just following your good example, Wikidemon. You handle the Talk page at another article with a forklift and people seem to love you for it. You're an experienced editor. What better goal in my Wikipedia existence could I have, than to model my Talk page management skills after yours? Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sockpuppetry confirmed

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

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

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

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

    Ugh. This is why I hate my involuntary tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It's amazing how similiar their "I'm a liberal", "I have left-wing agenda" while pushing right-wing POV is. I support blocks all around. DigitalNinjaWTF 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, 'Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?' " Well said. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the argument chiming out of all the sock accounts - the accusation that all the ANI incidents, blocks, edit warring, etc., is a plot by a cabal of editors to set them up for false accusations. Meanwhile completely misrepresenting the current incident as a content dispute between two POV camps. There is a single complaining editor and a number of other editors and admins who have weighed in. Of course the people here have tangled with this puppetmaster before - he's railed against a few dozen legitimate long-time editors on a wide range of articles, and he's sucked several of those editors into this latest report. It's him against Wikipedia, not him against a cabal.Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would say "hey guys, any chance that the IP's are so similar because they all edit through a corporate firewall", but I don't believe that is the case. I say this because in a company that requires/affords that type of firewall, you would be hard-pressed to find a few random editors who all have a penchant for editing the same articles with the same style of writing - unless, of course, they were all editing articles about their company (which would then be COI). -t BMW c- 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just caught that 300Wacker and the "supervisor" he admiringly quotes, with whom he shares similar writing styles ("By the way"), similar takes on the Wikipedia cabal, and a shared tendency to edit war over sockpuppetry notices, are both editing from the same Robert Bosch GmbH subsidiary IP address, above, used by prolific sockpuppeter BryanfromPalentine. I wish I had a "supervisor" who would show up to defend me on AN/I, even a boss who had any idea about Wikipedia. Personally, if I worked for a public company and I found that my employees were using company resources to play politics in an election, and were accused of pranking Wikipedia to do it, I'd report them to HR and IT rather than joining in the act myself.Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christ on a bicycle. It's painfully obvious that this is, if not bluntly sockpuppetry, then an organized collection of people editing to the same goals on the same pages. Block the bloody lot of them and be done with it. If we, for some odd reason, can't reach a consensus on that (and considering how often we've been sucked in by this particular little Illinois crowd of POV-pushers), then I suggest the issues be cooled down by issuing a topic ban on any politics-related articles. First choice is the block button, though - otherwise, this is going to keep coming back over and over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sock puppetry is a disgrace and has no place in WP. Those puppets should be ashamed of their behavior and banned for good. They even should have their American citizenship removed (although that is not possible) since they're used it in such disgracefully way that I'm pretty much ashamed of this behavior of my fellow citizens. I'm full of anger and done with it for now before I lose myself and really start posting inappropriate comments/opinions and I'll better don't watch this page for a while unless I cool down. Having a few bad day's anyway lately so this here it is the least I need right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One inappropriate comment (I just can't resist): Dump them in the next available landfill! Ok, now I shut up.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, do you drink much on your bad days Magnificent? :-D DigitalNinjaWTF 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on what you consider to be "much", yes, sometimes (like yesterday), but you could ask me such embarrassing things on my talk page instead of here. D'ow.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, let's go with not doing that. I want abusive Wikipedia accounts banned. Nothing more. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think murder or revocation of citizenship are options, but I'm wondering if Bosch's IT department should be told its IP is being used abusively? Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't imply "murder" in my last "over the top" comment. I really want to make that clear since I would NEVER EVER would imply such thing. Sorry if it was misunderstood.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would certainly be a good remedy. There is absolutely no reason to punish the entire company because of the behavior of one bad apple. They should definitely be made aware of the abuse. I'm sure they have policies in place to deal with such situations. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Write something up regarding this and I'll send it to the Swiss (and German) main office. Their tolerance for such misuse of company time and equipment is way lower than at the American branch, so there is a chance to be heard and consequences be applied.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy guys. Lets just take it one step at a time an block them first. We can always do more at the approperiate time, if such a time comes. DigitalNinjaWTF 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What a shocker - the cabal o' Obama have completed another witchhunt. I'd like to see the same loose standards of sockpuppetry "confirmation" applied to GoodDamon, Wikidemon, Scjessey and the rest of them. In fact, I'd like someone to run their IP addresses through that wiki utility that checks to see if they are working for a government agency or campaign. Seriously, this "confirmation" is just crap. I was accused of sockpuppetry once because I used the same ISP as some dude - an ISP that covers something like 5 states. What was the test for witches again? If they sink they are innocent and if they float they are witches? TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TGLocust, you've just come off your third block in a month. Is this really the kind of accusatory first edit you want to make on your return? Dayewalker (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What to do about this one? This is the account's first edit after a 2-week block for, well, you have to see the history. Wikidemon (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I call it like I see it. When I first made an account I was almost immedietly accused of sockpuppetry. You and your friends provoke people and then go and get them banned since they aren't as profiecient at working the rules - and in this case you are banning people for being from the Chicago (and at least one looks likes he may be using a mobile card from Sprint). A few people may be socks, but it looks to me like 3 of them aren't. Heaven forbid people in the tiny town of Chicago take an interest in a Chicago politician and his background. Why don't you just ban everyone with a Chicago IP? Well...if they are conservative that is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will respond to you exactly once on this. The "cabal" as you describe it is made up of editors with diverse editing histories. None of us -- I'm assuming you include me in your theoretical cabal -- are single-purpose accounts. The accounts of the puppetmaster you defend, however, are. Oh sure, he got smarter somewhere along the lines and started, as Bali puts it, pushing commas around on a few random pages with several of his socks to establish them as supposed editors in good standing, but they each evinced the same behavior, they each used the same editing styles, and they were each eventually traced to a puppetmaster with an extensive history of precisely this kind of activity. And as for you? You're also a single-purpose account. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but when a flock of SPAs continuously descend upon an article or series of articles with the intent to push the same POV, other editors can be excused for wondering if perhaps they're all the same guy, perhaps a sock army by a guy with a conflict of interest and an point to make. So get over it. --GoodDamon 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks

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

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

    Support the actions of brave akhilleus in ending the hectoring of this ilian army. You may strip them of their socks and vaunt.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hektoring... I like that. Nice. MastCell Talk 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I approve both Akhilleus' action and Bali ultimate's literate comment. However, I hope that we can avoid dragging the corpse of this edit warrior around the city. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock it to 'em. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be useful:

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

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

    Wow, that was a well-chosen quote. :) For the record: I think it's long past time to clean up this mess and block all of these tendentious agenda accounts. Whether they are actual socks or merely indistinguishable for-all-intents-and-purposes socks is a bit academic. They've all made it amply clear that their political agenda takes precedence over the encyclopedia and our basic behavioral and content policies. It's really too bad that we lost Noroton (talk · contribs) - who was opinionated but generally respectful of the project's goals - while this group of obviously abusive accounts remains active. Good blocks, and I advocate tying up the loose ends. I feel bad personally for not taking care of it myself sooner. MastCell Talk 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Block. If the editor feels compelled to provide us very real evidence they are not a sock, then that would be a very good reason to actually use the "unblock" feature. Hmmmm, some reason I foresee 5 different fully protected user pages in the very near future ;-D DigitalNinjaWTF 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Methinks perhaps at this point he is hinting that he knows the "joke" is over. If that is the case, then I doubly support Wikidemon's suggestion that we inform his place of employment of the long-term abuse coming from their IP address. They can no doubt track down the individual user on their corporate network responsible for most of their Wikipedia traffic, and prevent further disruption. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --GoodDamon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, Akhilleus. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank goodness this nightmare is over! Good work all around. Grsz11 →Review! 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support re-review and not an indefinite block I have not reviewed the edits and I also voted for Obama. But there are complaints of which I've seen evidence for at least one, that Obama supporters are banning anyone that does not support Obama in Wikipedia. This is bad because this is Wikipedia, not Obamawikipedia.org. I did see that this discussion is about ACORN. ACORN is a valid point to include in the Barack Obama article because it was a significant part of the election. What the banned people want to write, it is not shown here.

    I also disclose that I am not anywhere near Illinois.

    The spirit of Obama is fairness, not being a dictator stamping out all opposition. As long as discussion is civil, that is the American way and also the Wikipedia way. ImNotObama (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is left watching this -- it is quite likely, based on past patterns, that ImNotObama is a new sock of bfp/wb74/k4t etc. etc. This three day-old users first action on a user talk page was to appeal on k4ts behalf (and like K4t claims to be a big obama supporter) while providing a misleading interpretation of digital ninja's position (basically he says ninja wants only a 7 day ban). While I know blocks are not typically issued preemptively, I feel a close eye should be kept on the back forty of this serial abusers next sock farm and this is probably a good place to start.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only have I already blocked him for exactly those reasons, but within <5 seconds he has filed an unblock request citing his IP geolocation. MastCell Talk 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I was expecting some extra socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of this guy's current sock-farm, but that was fast! --GoodDamon 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The faster they come in, the faster they go out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh... And I just realized how funny it is for him to ask for leniency for accounts proven to be his sockpuppets. Kind of more-or-less automatically results in the new sock getting blocked, too. There are many cases where asking for reviews of indef-blocks is perfectly reasonable. Long-term abusive sockpuppetry ain't one of 'em. --GoodDamon 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Resetting indent) Might I suggest locking this user's talk page and those of the other socks? Otherwise, I'm guessing that there will be all sorts of time-wasting requests for unblock shortly. --GoodDamon 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still disrupting

    Can somebody block 78.34.129.217 (talk · contribs) as well. I also want this edit removed from my history immediately. Grsz11 →Review! 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours, especially in light of this and other comments. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on style, I wouldn't assume it's BfP, but it's definitely a sockpuppeting troll, and definitely needs a block. This IP claims to be Everyme. Is it? Because if yes, then maybe it is BfP after all. --GoodDamon 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is User:ImNotObama blocked?

    I notice this user has been blocked, but it is not clear from their talk page why this is. Their edits seem reasonable, and no-one appears to have referenced the edits that were the cause for their indef block. It's been asserted that they are a sockpuppet, but I can see no evidence that a checkuser has been run to confirm or refute this. Please could someone double-check to see if the proper procedures have been followed? Many thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear admins: This user rebroad has an extensive history of blocks for socking and ban evasion. He has archived most of his talk page stuff, but this is not a bad place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rebroad/Archive_2007 I find it interesting he's popped up here, and so interested in the fate of three day old user imnotobama, with whom he has never co-edited or corresponded with before. I strongly suspect this is yet another of BfP's socks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebroad's most recent edits are to complain above about the ImNotObama block and to reinstate material on User talk:Noroton [6]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not for sure of the motive here. It doesn't appear that Rebroad has been involved in prior discussions regarding this case or the prior cases. seicer | talk | contribs 03:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there doesn't appear to be much overlap, but the restoring of the Noroton stuff is weird, and does represent many points of contact. Rebroad has been on wikipedia it appears for a very long time -- yet why did he immediately gravitate to this?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest all of you ban-happy people read about the Salem Witch Trials. So far the consensus, to the obvious glee shown by some editors, is the banning of anyone who comes to the defense of these "socketpuppets." This not only prevents any real defense being mounted (which is also trying to be prevented by locked the talk pages), but it also prevents anyone else from coming to their defense or to express their own honest opinion out of fear that they too will be persecuted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are sockpuppets. He was found out. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not a matter of content disputes or POV, it is a matter of long-term abuse. That it was long-term abuse by a puppetmaster you happen to agree with politically doesn't make his behavior OK. --GoodDamon 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So who now? ImNotObama based on his prior conduct? Rebroad based on his talk page archive from 2007 and two edits today? TheGoodLocust and myself for now semi-supporting them? How far does this rabbithole go? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, do I agree with Locust. The entire series of articles have become a mess of ownership control games, with anyone outside subject to ridicule and blocks. This obsession with finding "socks" all days is just nonsense. Quit trying to figure out which new editor with two edits to articles that are in the news A LOT look or seem like socks. I hate to mention it but when we hit the point where an editor NOT making any mistakes gets blocked for being too suspicious, it's time to rethink the whole "indefinite block on sight" policy. Suggest we close this thread with archive tags and keep this speculative from going any further. Of course, then again, I could just be a 4-year-old underground sock waiting for this exact moment to be outed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give it a rest. The articles saw massive disruption wasting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours of editing time. We just discovered the core of the most disruptive sock farm. If you're a legitimate editor, then a few seconds perusing TheGoodLocust's history should cue you in that he isn't someone you want to be encouraging. One thing you are right about, the thread is attracting trolls. Wikidemon (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, mark as resolved and leave separate discussions for another time? And I see what you mean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions

    I'm reopening this discussion to bring up some questions and a few points I think are necessary for people to think about before this is archived. I received a few emails about the subject of this thread that are bringing me back from retirement at least to discuss this. Currently I'm recovering from an illness and it's a bit difficult to concentrate, so I'll try to keep it brief, but these points trouble me:

    1. The blocks to Curious bystander and Marx seem to be based on definitive checkuser information. Those seem like good blocks.
    2. The blocks on WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive are partly based on easily manipulated IP usage -- WB74 using a cell phone or similar device and 300wacker using a workplace IP address used by an already-identified sockmaster. It seems to me that either user should be able to get a new account from home. Combined with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I'm OK with those.
    3. The Kossack4Truth block bothers me a bit. Apparently that one was from home. There seems to be no evidence of socking other than K4T living in Chicago. If the block is about socking, that's insufficient. I suppose WP:DUCK behavior could be sufficient for a block, but I'd like to see that spelled out in detail, which is only fair. If the block is about behavior, then that should be justified with specific diffs, not general statements that K4T is behaving badly. There have been some statements about bad behavior in this thread, but they are made by other editors involved in disputes with K4T, and for that reason those statements are inherently unreliable. And I see very few diffs of bad behavior.
    4. What bothers me most about the description of K4T's behavior is that many of the same statements could be made about other editors who happen to have been on the side of the complainants here. (I readily admit that the K4T group that's been blocked advocated roughly the same positions that I would have if I'd been participating at the ACORN talk page or on Talk:Barack Obama. Also, I received two blocks myself about a month ago after a dispute with Wikidemon, so in that sense, consider me "involved".) Besides socking, K4T is accused of rough treatment of others' comments on the talk page, moving them around and, I think, closing discussions -- just what Wikidemon was doing on the Talk:Barack Obama page. Incivility is another charge, and there's been a load of that on both sides on both the Obama and ACORN talk pages. I'll try to provide some diffs. If K4T is going to be indef blocked for combining this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIV behavior with alleged -- and unconfirmed -- sockpuppeting, then some kind of sanction should be applied to editors who are perpetrating much of the same behavior.
    5. I get the sense that the admins doing the blocking are largely relying on vague recollections of past complaints and current, vague statements from involved editors without looking closely -- independently -- at the record on the talk pages. It would be good form for not only the complainants to cite specific diffs but for the blocking admins to do so. Providing specific diffs and specific reasons would be good form because (a) that helps avoid mistakes that lead to unfairness; (b) that helps someone unfairly blocked to mount a defense; (c) it offers proof to everybody else (like me, for instance) that some care and attention has gone into the decision to block -- it's important that Wikipedia not only try to be fair but that it be seen to be fair. Apperances matter, and this looks bad. Other editors further up on this thread have already complained. Even if every editor mentioned as a sock of this BrianFromPalatine is actually him, you'd want even the sockmaster to feel he'd been treated fairly -- I think that tends to reduce future bad behavior.
      • Regarding the be seen to be fair, I could not agree more. This is precisely the original point I was trying to make. indef blocks are an exceptional thing, and therefore require exceptional reasons and evidence. --Rebroad (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6. The block of ImNotObama seems to have been done simply because that user came to the defense of a blocked user. That really doesn't pass the smell test. That should be reviewed by other admins. Also, the person who created ImNotObama should be able to start another account from the same computer; would someone please tell me if that's possible?
    7. Bali ultimate has stated that User:Readbroad has an "extensive" socking record. That's not true. I see a single block for it, from more than a year ago. That statement should be redacted. It's this kind of inaccurate accusation that raises doubts about the blocks. GoodDamon's idea to block talk pages of the blocked users is also troubling.
      • I was blocked about a year ago on suspicion on sockpuppeting, which was later found to be untrue. Bali's personal attacks and premature archiving of talk pages are now getting to the point that I am considering proposing a community ban unless he starts behaving. --Rebroad (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think these are reasonable concerns that jusify keeping this thread opened longer. It seems to me that a strong case can be made even for K4T's block, but the case should be made. I don't have the strength right now for a long discussion, but I'll try to find those diffs I promised, or I'll redact the statement above. Please keep this thread open so these concerns can be addressed. I realize everyone's a volunteer here, but indefinite blocks deserve more attention to detail than we have here. And I'm not questioning any admin's good faith by raising these concerns. -- Noroton (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a case of WP:DUCK. In Kossack4Truth's case, a lot of his behavior was identical to that of old BryanFromPalatine socks, specifically claiming to be a left-winger while endlessly pushing a very non-neutral right-wing POV in the name of "truth." It's a slog, but go through some of BFP's old socks, and you'll find K4T was either another sock, or a twin brother. Then there was timing... 300wackerdrive edits during the day, from BryanFromPalatine's work IP address, and then Kossack4Truth edits in the evening. Never the two did meet, near as I can tell. As for making a sockmaster feel he's been treated fairly.... ehh, no. I just want his accounts blocked so he can't disrupt pages anymore. BryanFromPalatine is a banned user, as in permanently banned from Wikipedia. His socks are a block-on-sight kind of thing. As for ImNotObama, that account, which had never been here before, appeared all of a sudden to protest the blocking of the other socks, in the middle of some weird -- and frankly BFP-ish -- edits he was beginning on the Obama page. Again, looks like, "I'm really a liberal, guys! Only I think we should pick apart how his positions between the campaign and now have completely changed and he's going back on everything he ever stood for blah blah blah..." Same crap BFP socks always do. Now, I don't know if a quick checkuser on him verified that he was using the IP address of one of the other socks, but sure looks like a duck to me. --GoodDamon 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDamon, there are enough people on wikipedia that you'll often find some users' behaviours are similar to those of others. Hardly a reason for blocking! --Rebroad (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further reading of the duck test, I now realise you are actually mis-applying the duck test. If you look at the original wp:duck page you'll see it's all about not avoiding "using labels" to describe things. It's NOT about "hypothesising" that something is the same thing just because shares characteristics. Anyway, WP:DUCK is just an essay, not a policy, so is not really relevant when discussing policies. --Rebroad (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what an old version of WP:DUCK has to do with this, but I'm not seeing anything in that that disagrees with me. All I'm saying is it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it sure is quacking. --GoodDamon 07:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and as for Bali, I think he was wrong. But it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with from this puppeteer. --GoodDamon 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One other thing... In reviewing cases of other determined puppeteers, it looks like it's extremely common for a few more socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of other socks when a group of them get discovered and summarily dealt with. --GoodDamon 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to wonder if your definition of a sockpuppet is any user who agrees with another user. --Rebroad (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my definition of a sockpuppet is any user who is another user. Look... ImNotObama showed up at the above incident report, having not been involved in any way, within minutes of the other sockpuppets being blocked. In that edit, he simultaneously announced 1) That he had voted for Obama (as if that had anything to do with this whatsoever) 2) That his IP address wasn't in Chicago (as if that makes any difference when dealing with a puppeteer who is known to be familiar with checkuser and how to avoid it) and 3) That he supported undoing the decision of the admins without having reviewed the edits of any of the accounts. This after having already established a pattern of editing consistent with BryanFromPalatine's liberal-who-pushes-conservative-POV variety of sockpuppet. Sure looks like another duck to me. --GoodDamon 07:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On my talk page, GoodDamon wrote, under the heading, Why reopen?:

    I thought I was effectively answering your questions. Look... I understand that you happen to agree with this particular puppeteer politically. But this isn't about politics, it's about long-term abuse of Wikipedia by a banned user. I understand your concerns about ImNotObama, but seriously, look at that user's edits and tell me if you think that's his first account? There's no need to rehash all this. It's done. Give it a rest. --GoodDamon 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GoodDamon, do you know whether or not ImNotObama (INO) is BryanFromPalatine or an acceptable alternate account of some other editor? No, you don't. Do you know if INO is a former editor just returning? No, you don't. Sure, if the new editor was both suspicious and behaving pretty badly, there's a good reason to block. I don't see that there was a need do block that editor, and the possible harm is obvious -- especially if the person is not permitted to create a new account.

    You're right, the issues here are not political. The issue is whether one group of editors is being favored over another group of editors, and whether blocks are being made without adequate examination of evidence (I'm not questioning administrators' motives). If there is evidence, diffs can be provided. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your disinterestedness, but I'd rather rely on the diffs along with the word of the admins who acted. I don't think clear explanations are too much to ask.

    I explained why I was removing the blue box and reopening the sections just above [7], but Bali ultimate removed my comment[8], which I left I believe that's a violation of WP:TALK. This is actually a good example of the kind of rough treatment of other user's comments that editors were complaining about with regard to Kossak4Truth. When this kind of thing is taking place, it's a good reason for administrators to independently look into something before blocking rather than trust a complaining editor's perceptions. There isn't evidence that administrators did that.

    it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with The blocked editors could make a good case for saying the same thing. -- Noroton (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely. I was thinking the same thing. If allowance should be made, they should be made for both sides. It is hard work trying to see reason with someone with such a one-sided perspective. --Rebroad (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: The blocked editor. Apparently, ImNotObama's behavior was suspicious enough -- he was obviously monitoring the AN/I, he responded so fast -- that administrators I have no reason to doubt whatsoever took one look at his already-established behavior and concluded that yes, indeed, this was a newly discovered sock, come to defend old socks as is typical behavior. So yes, I'd say I do know that User:ImNotObama is BryanFromPalatine, because the admins made that determination. By the way, ImNotObama's sixth edit was a junk report here of Wikidemon, this puppeteer's current favorite punching bag. I'd say that qualifies as both "suspicious and behaving pretty badly".

    Now, as for the favoritism argument, I point out again... for what must be the thousandth time... that while one group of editors are not single-purpose, POV-pushing accounts, all the socks demonstrably are. That is why there is what you perceive as favoritism. Take a look at my contribution history: You'll find things from major rewrites to Scientology, to creating new articles for obscure Orthodox Jewish sects. You'll find an extensive history of vandalism-fighting, and if you look carefully you'll even figure out my true identity based on one particular article (which I try to avoid now, because I have a better understanding of WP:COI than I once did). Look at Wikidemon; the same. Look at Grsz11; the same. Look at the editors who aren't socks or SPAs; the same. That is why the admins "side" with one group over another. One group is helping the encyclopedia. The other appears to be a single banned user with an ax to grind. --GoodDamon 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Being an SPA is good grounds for suspicion and scrutiny, but by itself it isn't grounds for blocking. Yes, it certainly looks like ImNotObama is/was an alternate account, but again, not reason in itself for blocking. I'm not saying SPAs shouldn't receive greater scrutiny and even have less leeway than regular editors. I'm saying that admins have relied so much on passively watching complaints come in to AN/I that constant complainers (Wikidemon, especially) have caused a certain warping, where Wikidemon's targets are treated more harshly than Wikidemon's allies, who he naturally doesn't complain about. Admins actively looking into the talk page and article histories would see actions by your allies that are in some ways similar to the accusations against the blocked editors. It's fundamentally unfair for one side to get blocked and for the other to get off scott free. Time for me to find some diffs to prove this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Come on then Noroton, let's see those diffs! --Rebroad (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please close this part too? Accounts of the sock/meatpuppet farm are all blocked. I doubt anyone is going to go along with unblocking them, but if anyone wants to champion them, they ought do so without repeating their attacks on the legitimate editors here. Noroton has an obsession with me as his favorite punching bag as well. Before the block:[9][10][11] "[will] drag that editor through every single dispute resolution forum that has any hope",[12] "You have a lot to fear...You really shouldn't have provoked me into revealing your edit history to other editors. As far as you're concerned, it won't matter whether I'm unblocked an hour from now or a week from now",[13][14] "I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening"[15][16][17] After the block: [18][19] This fixation on me is vexatious, disruptive, and as I said before it's attracting trolls.[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

    information Note: This board is not a chatroom. Is any further administrative action requested here? Any editor who just wants to talk and get clarifications, please approach the administrators who have taken any actions, and ask them for clarification. Any editor is remains dissatisfied after such discussion may make used of dispute resolution. Everyone should take note that this page is not part of formal dispute resolution. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread was not started in order to chat. The blocks and rejected unblock requests involved at least three administrators: Akhilleus (blocked WorkerBee74, Kossack4Truth, 300wackerdrive, Curiousbystander and Marx0724), seicer (rejected ImNotObama's unblock request) and MastCell (blocked ImNotObama, templated Curiousbystander's user page, rejected unblock request by Kossack4Truth). When blocks were made, the discussion thread above this one was pointed to as justification. Is any further administrative action requested here? Yes: (1) review of the blocks by other admins; (2) I've asked all the admins to comment here in this central spot, to give specific reasons for their blocks of Kossak4Truth and ImNotObama. (3) As yet, there is no cogent explanation for K4T's and ImNotObama's indefinite blocks. That should always be provided. Note that Arkhilleus wrote above: I welcome review and discussion of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 I've brought up specific, serious questions that seem worth answering. Administrators should have a full opportunity to address them. (Incidentally, although Curiousbystander's user page was given a sock-account template [21], I see nothing on that user's talk page from Arkhilleus informing the user of the block or how to make an unblock request.[22] The block was made. [23]) -- Noroton (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)made small correction -- Noroton (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll speak to my part, in response to Noroton's request. Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) has been a long-term problem account. In retrospect, some of the behavioral ties to the BryanFromPalatine sockfarm are fairly clear, but it was off my radar as it had been awhile since the relevant ArbCom cases. Specifically, the agenda, the claims of being a member of DailyKos combined with relentlessly over-the-top partisan editing from the opposite perspective, combined with the checkuser information (which is complementary but not conclusive by itself) argue strongly, to me, that this account is either an out-and-out sock of the others, or at least behaviorally indistinguishable and a "functional" sockpuppet (c.f. here). Even putting all of this aside, K4T was an example of the worst sort of partisan editing and game-playing that afflicts this site, and was in the process of abusing his 11th or 12th chance when the sockpuppetry issue came to light.

    Now to my specific actions: I declined this unblock request on K4T's talk page. There were a couple of issues here: first, the {{unblock}} request was placed by ImNotObama (talk · contribs), rather than K4T. That's quite odd; add the classic "I'm an Obama supporter" disclaimer and the account history of ImNotObama (see next paragraph), and the fact that the unblock request did not address the merits of the block per se but argued for a reduced block length on vague grounds, and I felt that this request was properly rejected.

    Now to ImNotObama (talk · contribs), whom I indefinitely blocked as a sock. This account was about 3 days old, pursued the usual K4T/BFP talking points, and their 4th or 5th edit was a reasonably sophisticated un-archiving of an AN/I thread, followed shortly by posting the {{unblock}} request for K4T. In addition, there's the immediate "go ahead and checkuser me" response to the block. All of this suggests that this is not a new user. I think anyone with experience dealing with sockpuppetry who looks at this contrib history is likely to reach the same conclusion. Whether this is an out-and-out sock, a meatpuppet, or a proxy for K4T et al is perhaps largely academic; this is functionally, pretty clearly, an account directly related to the other abusive socks, and properly indef-blocked in my opinion.

    Outside opinions and review are welcome; I'm happy to elaborate if anyone feels it would be useful. MastCell Talk 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, MastCell. Although I still think it would be better to present diffs comparing K4T with BryanfromPalatine (and diffs of misbehavior), I trust your judgment. Are there any ways the two are similar that haven't been mentioned previously? I agree that K4T was an example of the worst sort of partisan editing and game-playing that afflicts this site, but I'll note that there are other examples of editors who fit that bill, and when it's combined with violations of behavioral policies in the future, I hope it will be given similar weight.
    ImNotObama certainly appeared to be an account of someone already familiar with Wikipedia (but that could have been nearly any other editor). Wikipedia allows alternate accounts if the accounts follow policy. The account didn't make a single abusive edit. this is functionally, pretty clearly, an account directly related to the other abusive socks Because the editor came to their defense? I've come to K4T's "defense" here and so has Rebroad, so it's not anything more than suspicious that a new account would do that. Editing the Obama talk page is also no big deal, and there wasn't enough of it to establish a connection. pursued the usual K4T/BFP talking points I haven't seen evidence of that; could you elaborate? Absent checkuser evidence, clear WP:DUCK evidence or misbehavior, I think you or a consensus of other admins should unblock. -- Noroton (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of socks in project-related discussions (such as policy debates and AN/I threads) is generally considered inappropriate (see, for example, this ArbCom finding). Certainly, a sock used primarily to agitate on AN/I and elsewhere for a specific unblock, and secondarily to support the blocked account's agenda, seems abusive. MastCell Talk 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is a consensus to unblock. I would have declined the unblock request and I endorse Mastcell's actions here. As far as "checkuser evidence", the jury will always be out on that. Barring some obvious screwup/naivete on the part of the sockmaster, checkuser will usually just present limited technical evidence for a proposition, not something conclusive. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think unblocks are warranted in these cases. It is easy enough to block later. It is also easy to say "block" when one doesn't agree with content of an article. It is also equally easy to say "unblock" when you do. Absent real evidence of sockpuppetry, blocks appear capricious and arbitrary.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess what I'm saying is that I believe there is "real" evidence of sockpuppetry here, and that these blocks prevent further disruption of the encyclopedia (which is, after all, the rationale behind any block). MastCell Talk 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well just let me thank you for your public declaration that you did not believe that I was a sock puppet after the spurious accusation had been made else where. That is the spirit of assume good faith.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I think Kossack4Truth and the guy using the mobile/cell should definitely be unblocked. My aunt uses a cell connection for her internet access almost exclusively due to where she lives. I imagine it is pretty common for a lot of rural people. As for the others, I looked a bit at the BryanfromPalantine "sock farm" and the original accusations (which seem a bit spurious at first glance), and it looks to me like it has just become a "boogyman" - where the accusation of being "BryanfromPalatine" is enough to permanently stain anyone. In other words - it is a quick and easy way to get someone you don't like permanently banned with minimal scrutiny. The only ones that should stay banned are the two which are confirmed socks by CheckUser.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The return of User:Infoart

    The Saatchi Gallery and Charles Saatchi pages have been the subject of much attempts to rewrite them in a more favourable light, generally lead by User:Infoart. Yesterday he attempted to do the same under a sockpuppet account, User:Sharpen16 which was quickly banned. He's uploaded a bunch of images, all apparently GFDL licensed by the Saatchi Gallery (which is nice). However both as the banned user Sharpen16 on that talk page and as InfoArt on Talk:Saatchi_Gallery he seems to insist that an "official Wiki representative" contact him to make changes to the page. Given that, as InfoArt he waved the legal wand around a little before it would be remiss of me to not flag that he appears to be wanting to control edits again, and is yet again making COI edits and removing content critical of the gallery. --Blowdart | talk 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You may wish to contact Cary Bass, as I understand he was very recently dealing with a senior staff member of the Gallery and may have a more detailed understanding of the standing of Infoart in relation to the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks for the pointer. --Blowdart | talk 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to add to this as far as any special handling. As I told them, they're welcome to edit the page so long as their edits conform to Wikipedia policies. They don't have any special ownership of the page, nor does the Wikimedia Foundation have any special interest in the page for any legal reasons. Bastique demandez 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the talk page, I want to point out that there is no such thing as "an offical Wiki representative." They don't want the Foundation, as we have no authority over content. If someone wants to be helpful and contact them by phone, that's fine. There are a few editors who are willing to do that. Bastique demandez 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did try to explain that. On the sockpuppet page as well *shrug* Fair enough, I wouldn't get involved either. If someone gives me a shiny badge that says "ofishul" I wonder if that would work? --Blowdart | talk 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wishes to contact the Gallery, be prepared to deal with "legalese language"... I tried and very quickly directed them to OFFICE - where they apparently were handled by Cary Bass (hence my "understanding"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ←As an uninvolved admin that has sat back and watched all this unfold, I am sick of seeing this and would support an indef block as a disruptive SPA and a community ban because they clearly do not intend to abide by our policies or edit in good faith. -MBK004 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. This has been going on for over two years with a number of accounts all trying to achieve the same aim. See Talk:Saatchi_Gallery/Archive_1 and AN/I discussion. The ban should be applied to any new editors that make the same kind of blatantly promotional edits. Ty 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this meet with support, or are there any other suggestions? Ty 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I support an indef block as well. He knows that there is no such thing as a representative and is likely just pushing for us to create some way for him to bully a single individual to get what he wants. Also, someone needs to check his image uploads as things like Image:SaatchiGallerySensation2.jpg are probably not GFDL. That makes me concerned about all his image uploads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all that. Perhaps we could ban them from the articles but allow them to contribute to the talk pages, so long as they don't try to take over, which is clearly a risk. They are uploading images under the GFDL, which is great in principle, but I don't think we have any bulletproof proof that the images are being licenced by somebody who has standing to do so. They should put the images on a section of their website with a GFDL licence declaration. That way we could use the ones we want without risk. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else want to comment? -MBK004 03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvagnya and insulting comments

    Could someone pls comment on User:Sarvagnya's comments during my interaction with him today. Here it is, last paragraph. Or better still, read up on South Indian languages and histories. Or confine yourself to defending Bihar's sorry case (oh.. I'm not doubting for a moment that all of India and the world is responsible for their sorry state) on a dozen coatracks.

    It is not an isolated incident. Pls see this edit summary. rm unsourced bullcrap.. cite the nonsense if you want to bring it back.

    He was also recently warned by User:Hersfold during his interaction with User:Fowler&fowler. Please see here.

    I would appreciate some input on this. It just makes working with him difficult. Thanks a lot. Docku: What up? 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm what? Someone said my name (or something close to it; I fixed the link above. User:Hersford is in fact one of my doppelgangers.)
    For better context, the "bullcrap" edit summary was partially what led to the previous block I placed. I would note that the incivility in edit summaries does appear to have slacked off. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Sorry for the typo. Docku: What up? 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has a long history of harassment, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. He was warned about incivility earlier this year due to the long term disruption he has caused since 2006/2007, and Nishkid64 made an assurance at the time that future instances would result in blocks. I'm troubled by the fact that a warning about incivility in edit summaries did not deter him from incivility in general. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)

    I've just archived very nearly a megabyte of arguments from the talk page. This represents just 3-4 months of discussion.

    The cause of this seems to be that User:David Tombe was unblocked.

    User:Brews ohare actually requested that he be unblocked.[24] To say that he enjoys the argument is a bit of an understatement.

    These 2 users are basically using the talk page as a discussion forum. The article doesn't seem to be improving noticeably.

    I'd appreciate it if David Tombe was reblocked. He's basically an extremely non-consensus POV warrior that has been blocked 11 times for various infractions including multiple incivilities, several times 'permanently' and was only unblocked this time at an admins discretion.[25] I do not believe that this unblock experiment has been successful, and I would appreciate it if he was reblocked at an admins discretion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If this user is causing further problems, it might be worthwhile to contact Antandrus (the unblocking admin) directly on their talk page, and asking them to review the unblock. From a quick glance through the various pages, familiarity with the case would look to be helpful. EyeSerenetalk 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David Tombe appears to be looking to take this extended discussion off-wiki anyway[26], which would serve everyone's purposes. Certainly the enormous discussions on that talk page have been outside the generally-accepted limits for talk-pages, so if they can carry on their arguments elsewhere then everyone's happy. ~ mazca t|c 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From my own personal experience this Wolfkeeper fellow is just as big a problem as Mr Tombe. The problem is that the editors, Wolfkeeper, and Brews Ohare are just as much a part of the problem as Mr Tombe. They refuse to achnowledge that there is a legitimate difference of opinion. They ignore his points and keep the argument going just to keep their opinions the ones that dominate the article. This is not really about compromise or trying to come to an understanding, it is about enforcing a certain scientific opinion upon wikipedia. I think that the other editors, including Wolfkeeper who are involved should be blocked from editing the centrifugal force page. My reason is that it is clear that the article should be a fair and balanced presentation. I say block all the current editors and start over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.58.151 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think, in the light of Mazca's diff, we can probably consider this closed. I don't see a need for further administrator intervention at this point anyway. EyeSerenetalk 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this is not an occasion to issue blocks, nor to single out individual editors. As long as the philosophical discussions can take place in another venue, there is no cause for action. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Mazca says, I would now prefer to take the discussion to private e-mails behind the scenes. But while I'm on here, I'd like to clarify what this argument is about in a nutshell. There are conflicting sources in the literature about centrifugal force. I have admitted that there exist some sources which are contrary to my own point of view. But I have been finding it nearly impossible to get a clear and open admission of the contents of sources which support my own point of view. The principle one is Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' which deals with planetary orbits and centrifugal force without any mention of rotating frames of reference. All I was trying to do was to get the facts on the table in order to try and work out a compromise balance in the presentation. I wanted one simplified, shortened, and coherent single article on centrifugal force.
    It ill becomes Wolfkeeper to come here and request that I be blocked at his own pleasure merely because I am in opposition to his point of view. Wolfkeeper is the one who split the article and he has a vested interest in maintaining this split which is merely two different angles on the same topic. Wolfkeeper didn't have a single legitimate ground upon which to make this request. David Tombe (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied to your note on Antandrus's talk page, and left you a note as well. The complaint was grounded in the fact that your talk-page discussion is off-topic and so lengthy as to become disruptive (see WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages). This is a legitimate complaint, and presuming bad faith and ulterior motives on Wolfkeeper's part is really not the most helpful way to go. Let's not extend this thread unnecessarily. EyeSerenetalk 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EyeSerene, The debate was going nowhere because it was going round in circles, and because not all participants were being consistent. I don't recall that it went off-topic at any point. I think that you were premature in accepting Wolfkeeper's allegation in this regard. And even if it had gone off topic, that was no grounds to single me out in particular. So I disagree with your analysis that Wolfkeeper's complaint was legitimate. It's like as if you are saying 'Wolfkeeper can complain against you, but don't you dare complain against him'. That may not be what you intended , but that's the way it came over. The assuming of the bad faith was clearly a two way thing. I have pulled out of the debate for the reason that I have realized it was futile. It was going to have to end sooner or later and now is as good a time as any. David Tombe (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry that you feel singled out here; you're perfectly right that there were a number of editors perpetuating the talk page discussion, but Wolfkeeper's complaint specifically concerned you. My response simply addressed his complaint, which I'm afraid was legitimate. Although Brews ohare acknowledges that the debate has led to some improvements in the article, this is excessive by any standards. It was on-topic only in as much as it concerned the article subject, but far too much of the talk page was (before archiving) taken up by editors trying to convince one other of their interpretations of the subject, as opposed to suggesting specific improvements to the article. It might help to take another look at the link in my previous post.
    In contesting Wolfkeeper's complaint, you suggested he had ulterior motives in making it; in fact, you make some fairly strong accusations about his editing ethics and neutrality. These are very much out of synch with our policies of civility and no personal attacks, which you're already well aware of, having been blocked for violating them before. He too makes some pretty strong statements, but unfortunately your editing history does not make them easy for you to refute. If you're going to accuse editors in good standing of inappropriate behaviour, you absolutely need to supply proof.
    If you really want to continue this, we can. However, I'd strongly suggest that, since we all seem to agree that your helpfulness in offering to take the debate off-site and in undertaking to stop contributing to derailing the talk page has resolved the situation, I fear you may end up talking yourself into difficulties. EyeSerenetalk 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry EyeSerene, but you're quite out of order here. If Wolfkeeper's complaint specifically concerned me, the question should have been asked why? And what? David Tombe (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC) David Tombe (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you seriously trying to argue yourself into another (and probably final) block? Most of those who've commented in this thread were happy to regard the matter as closed... except apparently you. You've subsequently attacked the editor who made the complaint, (without supplying any proof of your allegations) and now appear to be suggesting that you've been treated unfairly. Have you actually taken any notice at all of what's been said above? Do you honestly think that, in glossing over your talk-page disruption and deciding to give you the benefit of doubt, I've been unfair to you? You're very welcome to seek review of my action (or inaction), and as always any other interested editor or admin is free to comment here too. You have to be aware though that if, in the light of your previous record, I'd decided to apply a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:TALK guidelines (not to mention article content guidelines such as WP:FRINGE and WP:OR), your account would already be blocked. You've been offered a 'Get out of jail free' card. My advice is to take it. EyeSerenetalk 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Imperious use of Admin powers by User:William M. Connolley

    I asked a very simple question:[27]. The question was clear and legitimate. The answer was a 12 hour block for apparently having had the impertinence to ask it. I can think of no other place on Earth where a person would be barred from discussing a claim put forth by another Editor in support of a content edit to the encyclopedia. Is there a rule that prohibits one from discussing supporting evidence to a content edit? 75.49.223.52 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that this thread [28] gives the background of this block. The IP and User:Arcayne were engaged in a dispute, and Connolley appears to have decided the IP was wrong enough to be blocked [29], and the IP's question was the final straw. Connelley did warn [30] the account a day in advance. But, to impose a block after the IP asked a polite question is, in my opinion, problematic. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a polite troll. looie496 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, WMC shouldn't have made the block (COI). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    just because you disagree doesn't make them a troll. If you want to make that accusation provide background. I see allegations, but I also see a mention that CUs have failed. The question seems perfectly legitimate.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A polite question that contains no policy violations, such as outing someone or something like that, should not be the last straw that earns a block. Cla68 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may interject (EdJohnston told me that this was going on), I was unaware that the anon had been blocked, but I can't say I am not surprised. While it sounds like a PA, I've had to deal with this anonymous user since March, and this person is the poster child for blocking. Yes, the anon is polite, but politeness is moot compared to the stalking of my edits (which the anon has), the attacking of my (and only my) edits and background at every given opportunity.
    Cla68, the content of the 'last straw' email from the anon to WMC was the same sort of complaint and baseless accusations that have been offered by the anon in various articles, article discussions and wikiprojects since March. William has no conflict of interest; I had presented him, as per his request, proof that the anon was stalking my edits as well as making various and continuous personal attacks towards/about me (viewable here). After reviewing the long history of the anon's behavior, WMC gave the anon a final warning, imploring him/her to "see sense". William additionally removed a personal attack by the anon from article discussion. The anon chose to respond shortly thereafter (less than four hours) by again attacking me with unrelated grievances (my educational background and a cite that I didn't even add to an article). As this was precisely the same sort of crap the anon has been perpetrating for over even months (and the last block for such behavior had been 31 hours), I think William was - if anything - too lenient. Of course, I am biased; William M Connolley is not.
    I should point out that my very first block in Wikipedia two years ago was given out by William (I was new, but I deserved it), so I am not his buddy or pal, but I do find him to be polite, fair and scrupulously honest. The anon, who hides behind IP addresses to avoid admin scrutiny - despite being told by half a dozen editors and admins to get an account - cannot make the same claim. It bears pointing out that the anon has managed to hold onto the same IP address for over a week now, which indicates that the IP-swapping is not the "uncontrollable feature" of the user's ISP that the anon has used as excuse for the two dozen IP addresses in the past eight months. The anon chooses to conceal their editing footprint. While that is not socking, per se, it is an awfully sneaky (yet ultimately ineffective) way to avoid having your edit history scrutinized by an investigating admin. That, coupled with the numerous blocks for trolling, is cause enough for concern.
    William has acted quite correctly, if not a bit more forgiving than the anon deserves. "Imperious" is not a word I would use to ever describe William or his actions. He's been here practically since Wiki opened for business, and I would trust few people better to know how to act, wiki-wise, than him. This is the anon, throwing a tantrum. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reread the anon's question again to see if contained baseless accusation. Well, maybe, but it's phrased in a way that doesn't attack you in an incivil manner. It may be true that that IP is being a pain in the neck. But, remember, blocking is a last resort. Another problem is that blocks seem to happen more often to new or anonymous users than to "established" editors (whatever that really means). If the anon keeps going around asking questions that politely, and no one responds to them, which was probably the correct course of action in this particular case, then there wouldn't be an issue here. If the anon actually violates a policy, such as 3RR'ing you, vandalizing an article, calling you a *#$%^, or something along those lines, then block them to correct their behavior. But, if the anon continues to voice their disagreement with questions phrased that politely, then just ignore the editor if you must. Cla68 (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon was blocked for being disruptive over a long period, and will be blocked again if he persists. Repeatedly asking the same questions to no purposes but to annoy is disruptive. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, remeber? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    could you provide the diffs where it was repeatedly asked?--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon, me, was not disruptive. This is what disruptive looks like:[[31][32][33]]. Listing IP addresses and puffing them up with stuff like this [34][35][36][37](and that's just a sample) is simply wrong. Arcayne is not telling the truth or acting in Good Faith - he has been challenged on his "List" before, it's a fabrication. I have claimed all my IP's - never in any article will you see anything but absolute consistency and distinct identifiable editing on my part. Read these Checkusers - you'll see me claiming my IP's while the Admin asks why the CU? [38][39][40] 'Never' has he listed the vandal IP's officially - he only throws them out in his wave of attacks meant to bury under the sheer weight of his supposed "evidence". He is an accomplished Wikilawyer, adept at gaming the system. Arcayne has dragged me through at least a dozen forums and administrators talk pages and every once in a while like here, an admin looks at all the text on the screen and before even allowing me to defend - pronounces guilt. In this instance Mr. Connelly is simply not responding to the charge, he remains aloof and not interested in listening. Fine - except if he can't be bothered he should have remained neutral, or at least consider the fact that he could have been mistaken by another editors manipulations.75.49.223.52 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but one of the basic defenses at being lumped together with a number of IP addresses that might not be yours is to set up an account - which the user has been asked to do a half-dozen times. The user has claimed almost every IP address they have been RfCU'd about, and unrelated name accounts from RfCU were not included in my complaint to WMC. I suspect (but of course cannot prove) that were the user to register an account, the blowback from his often uncivil criticism and behavior would have him/her blocked/banned in short order. That he has been the subject of at least three RfCU is an indication to link the anon with socks is further proof that the user can in fact manipulate when their IP address changes. In point of fact, the anon has retained the same IP for over a week now; it is advantageous for him/her to do so. Were it not, the IP currently being used would go silent, and a new one would pop up, as it had in at least seven different situations. We may never know how many IP addresses the user has used.
    Not to point out the obvious, but the fact that (s)he is polite here ever so often is akin to wearing a shirt and tie on occasion; it isn't the usual tenor of his/her posts, and they made users like PelleSmith eventually leave the Project. And frankly, posting a comment in WIkiProject: Oxford (w/out corresponding suggestion to me) calls attention to the anon user's outright libel about my educational background. It fairly says that the user isn't here to build an encyclopedia, but to win. Clearly, part of that victory is for them to somehow 'get me'. I don't mind telling you all that I find that pretty creepy and frightening, actually. It's like having my own personal Grawp.
    The anonymous user's best course of action is to re-focus their efforts on building an encyclopedia. It would be splendid if they could find areas to edit where I am not at, but frankly, unless they are posting from the familiar '75.-related' IP, I might never know. I would also suggest that the user do what (s)he has been advised to do for at least eight months - start an account. In fact, I would suggest that it be a criteria for continued editing; the user is far too involved in what (s)he calls the "social networking aspect" of Wikipedia - an average of filing more than one AN/I a month simply negates that argument - to maintain aloofness without arousing suspicion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was allegedly repeated and on-going, which is what caused the block. So I'm going to repeat that again, please provide the diffs of the repeated and on-going. He was certainly snide in his comment 4 months ago, but if thats all its been, then i'd need to see more to get anywhere near the remotest hint of a block here.--Crossmr (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, wasn't the uncivil remark again questioning the veracity of my educational background and attacking me in the Fitna (film) article discussion wasn't enough? WMC did say to knock off the incivility, just one of a chorus over the past eight months.
    I could provide the list of Diffs where the anon was blocked less than a month ago and then again less than a week ago. For a full list, you could go to WMC's usertalk page. The post takes up some space, and I wouldn't want to create more of a tangential conversation by listing what a busy bee the an on has been since March. The diff presented to WMC can be seen here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Fitna link is an attack? You incorrectly targeted the IP as a sock of someone and were wrong. For that he felt harassed and stated it (politely) and provided diffs. I don't know if you actually harassed him or not, but that is how he felt.I don't remotely see any attack in that diff. As for him questioning your qualifications, can someone provide me the diff of the edit you make that causes him to question that? If you were indeed making an edit and claiming your education as supporting evidence for the edit, then your education becomes fair game. Sorry but if this is all there is to base this block on this is looking extremely suspicious. You make comments like this The user has been advised (or outright ordered) on at least five different occasions to start an account; the user still prefers not to, and that begs the suspicious question of 'why' the anon doesn't. Which is an utter lack of good faith, anons aren't required to get accounts and we have more than one long time contributor who edits only from an IP. Do you have some CU evidence tying all these accounts together? or any of them?--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • I should have hoped that William M. Connolley would have remembered that it is injudicious for an already involved admin to react to a third parties comments with an sysop action; if it was an obvious policy violation another admin could easily have been contacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure where the Georgre-WMC arbcom sufficiently parallels this matter, LessHeard; in the matter you linked, William extended the block of someone who was attacking him. In this matter, the anon was attacking me. The only way that William was "involved" is that he asked for evidence and, upon viewing that evidence, issued a warning, and subsequently a block for violating that warning. As far as I know, admins block folk who disregard their specific warnings, and the admin isn't involved in the disagreement between third parties. Again, William is pretty darn level-headed and, despite being a little too proactive in regards to Giano's "idiosyncrasies", seems to have acted scrupulously here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a parallel certainly, but perhaps an instance where WMC may have requested a sanity check before acting upon the third parties response - if I was "nudged" by some of the superficial similarities it is certain that others were too. There seems to be a concern voiced above that the specific question did not contain policy violations, that WMC acted too quickly to block over it, and WMC also commented that the repeated question was "annoying"... Was it too much to ask another admin to look over the matter?
    However, it appears that otherwise this matter has become quiet - and I am therefore also happy to allow it to fade away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only stepping back to allow Mr. Connolley time to respond, he has yet to to. Nor have the repeated requests for Diffs from Crossmr been responded to.
    And Arcayne, it was not an "uncivil remark questioning the veracity of your educational background." It was the utter impeachment of the supporting citation you yourself introduced to enter, drive and retain a content edit to the Encyclopedia. Nothing from the specific edit to the degree you claimed to base it on was true. The degree is not granted by the institution and never has been, - and the edits themselves, your insistence that the EU is an NGO, or that penultimate means climax are, like the claimed degree's, demonstrably untrue. If you base a content edit on your purported specific degree, why would you express surprise when your very own supporting citation is questioned? No one forced you to make it up or pushed you into insisting upon a content edit using it as your sole basis. Your accusations against me are equally baseless, yet your insistence equally confident and forceful. Please provide Crossmr with the diffs he requests, it's only a shame that we can't go through all of your claims - we both know how very little of your big bucket of mud is true. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. You guys do what you want. I am tired of dealing with the anon's unending bullshit, and am going to step back a bit, before I lose my cool.
    Block him, don't block him, whatever. He isn't going to do what you want him to, anyway - he's already shown that - and he'll be back here at ANIin another month or two calling another person "imperious" or worse. William was right (and Crossmr has the link he requested, if anyone was curious) to block the anon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the diff of the claim as requested by Crossmr at 01:25, 15 November.
    It began when Arcayne incorrectly stated, "the EU is ... actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. ... we do not link flags to NGO's", he was politely and clearly corrected by Editor Kapow, "f) The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. it does not 'act on behalf' of any single state; it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE." Arcayne then cited himself, f - Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,[41]. The claimed multiple degrees even change from time to time, "I have more than a passing familiarity with the subject,PashaGol. I have two undergraduate degrees in both History and Political Science from Oxford and having done post-grad work and worked in the region for over a year."[42] The institution was again specifically cited here to support an incorrect edit, "With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English. My understanding of the word is how it is actually supposed to be used in writing... penultimate being the climax of the story."[43] And is again mentioned here,"I went to school at Oxford. I am aware of Britwit, and the differences betwixt it and American humor."[44] as well as here, "I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted". It's actually three degrees that he's claimed so far, two of which are not even offered at Oxford - they simply do not exist. Additionally the edits he uses his claim to support were also wrong. He uses his claim of an Oxford degree to degrade those he converses with, he makes the claim often, the claim is not made consistently - the degrees change, and he's just flat out wrong on the content he uses his claim to support. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely agree that there are some discrepancies in what arcayne has claimed and I still haven't seen any provided evidence to show this alleged on-going and unending trolling. I've seen one comment 4 months ago that was snide and a comment now which didn't violate any policy. Currently I think the blocking admin has to seriously explain this as its beginning to look more and more suspicious. I also believe arcayne should seriously clarify his qualifications if he wants to use them in debate (which really they don't belong in anyway). We already had a major incident where someone misrepresented themselves on wikipedia. Inconsistencies like that make me nervous.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When it was pointed out on the occasion of the Int'l Relations and Poli Sci claim (as distinct from his other claim to a History degree in an edit war over a history related edit) that he used to drive and retain an incorrect content edit in a mainpage that Oxford simply does not offer the courses [45], I suggested that one would have taken the long standing and famous PPE. Arcayne immediately took up on this, "if I choose to represent my PPE and my associate's degrees in a form that folk will understadn". So he has now claimed degrees in Political Science, International Relations, History, Politics, Philosophy and Economics. I'll also add that Oxford does not offer "associate degrees". 75.49.223.52 (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, ANI is not the project page to talk about this stuff. Meanwhile I think your wikilawyering is getting a bit thick. However, editors shouldn't flaunt themselves as authorities in anything, for many and sundry reasons: Let reliable sources have their sway. If you want to cite your degree, write something and publish it elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a second, this anon is the old anti-Arcayne harasser? I vaguely remember there was something of the sort that went a couple of months back, but I had lost sight of it. (Arcayne, if you have the diffs ready, perhaps you could point me to where this first occurred). If this is the case I'm thinking of, please treat the anon as indef-banned, everybody. Longterm, nasty harassment. Anybody ranting on about Arcayne's claimed or real or alleged academic qualifications should be blocked on sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm... that rings a bell, and upon review the diffs provided of the April edits certainly point toward that matter. However, neither Arcayne and certainly not WMC - whose brief comments here have not been exceedingly helpful - have brought it up. If it is the anti-Arcayne commentator, then, yes, blocks are in order. However, the central and original issue (and never mind who may have brought it up) is that "reactive actions" by admins reflect poorly upon the sysop concerned, and especially if said admin seems unwilling to explain themselves period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the biggest problem. I'm still having trouble finding out exactly what this IP has done. There has been a claim made, and some blocks provided, but for the most part diffs of actually behaviour issues aren't that compelling or many. I've basically been told "here is the contrib list of 20-30 IPs go find it yourself". The first random one I clicked on showed no problem edits, so I am not about to go dig through who knows how many contribs to try and find the problem edits and make the case for them. The admin who made the block shouldn't have made it because of his involvement and frankly I don't know if anyone should have really made it at this point. I'd recommend a RFCU and if exactly what happened here can be hammered out and no real justification for the admins actions can be found it might be necessary to examine him further. We have these policies and procedures for a reason, no admin is above them and any that act like they are, are questionable.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubling revelations of consensus on the Barak Obama talk page for other presidents' pages

    Recently there was a discusion on the Talk:Barack Obama page on what the name should be in the information box. Somehow the name Barak Hussein Obama was all of a sudden a controversial issue when it came to wikipedia. I will not retransmit the entire argument, but I will say that part of the argument was that the Obama page needed to be in line with WP:MOS and with the other presidents pages. Some editors, whether in good faith or bad, decided to begin changing the info boxes of some of the other recent presidents in order to proove a point. Here at Ronald Reagan [[46]][[47]], on Bill Clinton[[48]][[49]] at George W. Bush[[50]] and others, if anyone cares to look. The deletion of the middle name on the Richard Nixon page is telling [[51]][[52]][[53]]. Notice that one of the edits states that consensus was formed. Where? Not on the Nixon page, but on the Obama page. The name Richard Milhous Nixon also seems to have survived two years of consensus, since it has been that way, since 2006.

    As far as I know there is no precedent for forming consensus about other pages on another articles talk page. Nor does WP:MOS exclude either use of the names. Consensus needs to be reached on each articles talk page, each page stands alone regardless of how much we like to make them all look the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, it looks like garden variety wikigaming. Whoever is doing it ought to be told to cut it out, and the names restored to their prior versions. A bigger concern is the ongoing edit warring on the Obama page itself while people are trying to figure it out. How many times has Obama's name been reverted in the infobox? People should have the discipline to leave things be while they reach a resolution. I have absolutely no opinion on what the resolution should be or what guidelines apply, just that the edit warring is not a good thing. I would hate to see the article protected again or editors blocked over such a trivial matter. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the Obama edit war has spilled over to the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and James K. Polk pages as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Get your WP:TROUTs out, I think we have trouble!Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue warnings and blocks for 3rr violations, otherwise, let them fight it out in our content dispute resolution process. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Threeafterthree (talk · contribs) and Everyme (talk · contribs) have been blocked, one for edit warring, the other for incivility. Either way, they seem to be the two biggest problems. Tiptoety talk 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos. That should cool their jets a bit. One problem, though, seems to be a lack of clarity on how the infoboxes should read. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that is an issue for the talk page, and for community consensus. Until that time, I see no other administrative action needing to be taken. Tiptoety talk 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Before it got going hot and heavy on the Obama page, most of the Presidents' pages had the full names in the infobox. FDR and LBJ had only middle initials, and Obama started out as first and last names only. Some users claimed all the Presidents had full names. When it was pointed out that that was untrue, someone changed FDR and LBJ to full names in order to claim a precedent. Then the Obama skirmish began, back and forth like pingpong. One oddity is that there is a line for "birth name" in the infobox, so the infobox for Obama thus contains the full name twice. This is all rather silly, yes? And not helped by the baiting of user Everyme, who claims that anyone who questions the full name at the top must be a racist, and pretends not to see the redundant full name later in the infobox. This nonsense is why I gave up trying to help on that page. That, along with the "African American" question (or "endless loop", in reality). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone for helping out. I just did not see how consensus reached on the Obama page somehow meant that the same consensus ruled on the other pages as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The birthname line isn't that unusual if it's only used for Presidents whose names were changed (Clinton and Ford come to mind). Are they filling it in for all presidents or only for the ones who had their names changed (and Obama)? --NellieBly (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most notably, the recent ones, but I saw a change as far back as Polk.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this quite troubling. Traditionally each WP article found its own consensus -- now a handful from one article seek to impose their rules on others? Collect (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really what's happening. I don't think anyone wants consensus at Barack Obama to apply everywhere; it's just that some editors are willing to edit other articles as a means to an end, i.e. to get changes to Obama's. In the absence of definitive guidelines on the subject, a bunch of editors have fallen back on the more basic notion of (depending on your position) consistency across articles, or WP:OTHERPRESIDENTEXISTS. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no precident for consistancy, nor do I wish to have one, and since WP:MOS does not take a position either way, each article should have its own consensus. Editors need to stop arguing consistancy.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [rantstarts]As I am the one being BOLD and I'm up to no good, slap me. I'm smelling awfully fishy right now. When taking the time to read the archives of these presidential pages, prior consensus invariably went something like this. What's the best name. Oh, I know, it the official presidential name, or something like that. So what we have had is a de facto "official name" rule that has migrated across these pages. Policy allows for the guidelines to be bent, but I'd like new consensuses on these pages. I'm willing to argue content on any or all the pages. But its basically the same argument and there is more than enough room to accommodate, compromise, etc. I am willing to discuss this on any page with any and all concerned editors. If any of my effort to make a major improvement (trivialized by some and overblown by others) is not warranted I'll I'll I'll, just thank you for all the good fish.[endrant] Modocc (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Listen please. No one is accusing anyone of acting in bad faith. Especially you. I have seen enough of you edits for quite a while now to know that you are one of the good ones. I know that you are an outstanding editor, and you always have the best intentions in mind when making edits. My argument is that the consensus that was formed on the Obama talk page should not be binding to the other pages. Although no one or two editors own article pages, and everyone is welcome to contribute, each page always has a few dedicated editors who are more involved and are working hard to maintain an article. It just so happens that myself and a few other hard working editors have, in just the past few weeks, did a major clean-up of the Nixon article. I just today placed it in nomination for WP:GA. My only concern is that the current dispute may hinder the process.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Srkris - Civility and disruptive POV edits

    User:Srkris has been:

    Please look into this. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


    Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)
    • ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Avinesh (Gentleman Account) and User:Googlean (Enforcer account)

    For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

    Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Wikipedia. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

    Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in[talk] 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in[talk] 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SSP case filed. --vi5in[talk] 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible reformed vandal?

    It's rare, but it isn't impossible. Case in point: User:The Nice Hollaback Girl. This is the individual that was doing those strange edits to Jimbo's user page and who is now requesting a chance to contribute meaningfully. From my experience with this user, he's a "he" despite the name. I guess he likes Gwen Stefani.  :) I'm willing to give a benefit of the doubt and I left word on the talk page. Just thought y'all should know what was up. If this guy is sincere, it's a real victory. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and welcomed him. If this is for real, I gotta tell you, it feels good. I like outcomes like this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How touchingly naive. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been editing this site for nearly seven years under two different usernames, so I'm not exactly naive in the ways of this site. I've been thrown under the bus by users who suckered me in, but even more so when I've fought against vandals. If he acts up, block him. If not, let's AGF. He can't hurt anything. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet eh? :) Just kidding. I think your assumption of good faith here is admirable. Not just that, but it's something we all should aspire to. Be well. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All he said was "DO NOT BLOCK ME I WANT TO START ANEW!" and you call it "a real victory". I'd say that's naive. Anyway, shouldn't he be blocked for block evasion or at least impersonation?--Atlan (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, X. To answer you, Atlan: Normally, I would agree with you. When I saw that name on the new user log, I spat out a string of curses which I won't repeat here. But when I signed in and saw the message, I figured what the heck. Like I said, if this person is playing us for fools, his plug gets pulled and I'll slink to the nearest corner to wipe the egg from my face.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Us"? Who is this "us"? I like my omelette served on toast not me face. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the mouse in my pocket.  :) Gee, try and be nice to a vandal and look what happens. Pronoun trouble. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. That's the spirit kid! Onwards and upwards!. :D X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, buddy! Full throttle, pull back on the stick, wild blue yonder, here we come! Gotta run, but I'll keep an eye on the situation. If he acts up, I'll run up an AIV or ANI report. Later! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here... but, if this were me and I really wanted to reform- I ditch the obvious name and try to really start anew instead of choosing another name that obviously draws attention to me. Maybe he really does want to reform, I just think it's sort of odd... L'Aquatique[talk] 08:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was me, I wouldn't consider my monobook the first thing that needs to be taken care of. Ah, well, we'll see how this goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for having faith in me i guessThe Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Faith in you? It's a mixed salad. Personally I think you should be blocked as an obvious vandal/troll. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Going well so far: [54]. I'd like to point out that someone who was making the edits that they were (and yes, I can confirm it's not an impersonator) is very clearly aware of some of the politics of Wikipedia, and no doubt this is some kind of game or power play. So yes, do feel free to keep playing into their hands and wait for them to bite back. Or not. Maybe they'll just dispense with biting back and eat you completely, so fast that you won't notice. End of sarcasm. --Deskana (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yairs. Very true. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hollaback Girl: why should we have faith in you? You've spent the last G-dknowshowlong disrupting and socking and causing an awful lot of trouble, but when you inexplicably decide to turn it around we're supposed to just take you at your word that nothing is afoot? Sorry, doesn't work that way. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to block the account myself, but I would endorse or support any block on this account. The general practice is for people who break the rules to first prove that they intend to stop breaking the rules before sanctions are lifted. Edit warriors who go for a long time without reverting can have 1RR restrictions removed, but only once they have proven themselves. Likewise, and relevent to this case, sockpuppeteers should only be allowed back into the community once the prove they will not create new accounts in violation of the rules. Again, I will not act to block this account, but I have strong reservations about allowing long term disruptive sockpuppeteers to continue to edit when one of their accounts says "OK guys, just kidding about all of that" and we accept that as enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, all is so far so good. I agree the monobook edit is a bit strange, but the other edits seem legit. I am all for a block of this account as well as a range block if he steps so much as a millimeter out of line. Believe me, I'm watching. I got burned big time trying to mentor the likes of User:Wiki brah and that SuperDude character whose username I can't totally recall. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New pedophilia SPA, probable sock

    This new account has 34 edits so far - 24 are aggressive WP:SOAPBOX comments on Talk:Pedophilia and the other 10 appear to be distractions - minor spelling changes on various topics.

    Whether the new account is a new user or a sock is unknown, though the writing style and content are similar to a couple banned users who edited the pedophilia-related topics.

    • first edit (and later edits) - claims that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation"
    • 3rd edit or 4th - threatens to make "major changes to the entire article"
    • describes the mainstream DSM as a "cultural courioisty" [sic]
    • repeatedly describes pedophilia as a cultural issue, not a scientific or medical issue, contrary to all mainstream references
    • in multiple comments, states that pedophilia is analogous to homosexuality: [55], [56], [57] - here are a couple gems:
      • "Once homosexuality was accepted as normal, then all arguments against pedophilia immediately become obsolete."
      • "Same goes for homosexuality or any other sexual variation."
      • "Most pedophiles also find women sexually attractive, so there is no necessary result in harm even in this society. Homosexuality is more problematic if we look at the facts, they have more psychological problems and physical disease than heterosexuals in general, so you're treading on very thin ice here."

    That's the direction of this user's comments. Since they're all in that one talk-page section, it's easy to see them all by reviewing the section rather than through additional individual diffs. Several editors have pointed out on the talk page in detail the ways that the new account's comments are off-track, but he has continued to press his fringe agenda.

    I request that administrators please review the pedophilia-focus and overly aggressive initial approach of this new account.

    Thanks for checking it out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have checked the edits and left a very gentle reminder concerning our policies. At present he has not stepped over the line. I and others will be watching. No opinion on whether he is a sock. JodyB talk 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reviewing it. I was not requesting any particular action, or a block. My intent with this incident report was for admins to be aware of this account, hopefully that's all that's needed. Based on the history of other accounts that started out this way though, it appears unlikely that this will not escalate, so please do keep this account on the radar. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedophilia and related article - disruption has commenced

    Disruptive editing by the above user has now commenced. After being warned by JodyB, and told by multiple editors on Talk:Pedophilia that his sources are fringe and his changes do not have consensus, the user moved large sections of the article to Child Sexual Abuse. He was reverted by myself once, and also by another editor who also left a level-2 warning on his talk page, to which he responded beligerantly. The tone and style of his response indicates that he is an experienced user.

    Glenn Stokowski has also reverted two editors who undid his non-consensus changes, and marked his major removal of information as a "minor edit".

    I'm not going to continue reverting the damage, because I will not edit-war.

    This now requires administrative intervention, please help. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone else reverted the changes prior to my getting there, but I've left another note regarding consensus and encouraged him to continue the discussion without making the edits prior to reaching agreement. If it continues, post here again; I'll monitor as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Glenn Stokowski for edit warring after he reverted to his preferred version once again, almost immediately after another administrator initiated discussion on his talk page. I hesitate to consider this resolved, however; more review may be needed. Risker (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. He doesn't seem to get that "consensus" on a topic is not measured in how long you've been talking about it. That could prove problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with both of the above comments, it's not likely the situation is fully resolved. But aside from that - thank you, Tony and Risker and the other editors who helped with this tonight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to let everyone know, I've extended it to indef for disruptive behaviour and pro-pedophile activism. I've also let ArbCom know about it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    USS Liberty Incident

    USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: [[::User:Henrywinklestein|Henrywinklestein]] ([[::User talk:Henrywinklestein|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Henrywinklestein|contribs]]), [[::User:15thSt|15thSt]] ([[::User talk:15thSt|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/15thSt|contribs]]) and [[::User:Yellabina|Yellabina]] ([[::User talk:Yellabina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Yellabina|contribs]]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Wikipedia policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UNINDENT

    As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joejoemaster96

    Resolved
     – Blocked indef - sans drama.

    Made this edit to the main sandbox (diff). Clark89 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef. No drama. Unwanted editor. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we also oversight the edits made - BLP? D.M.N. (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk: Adrienne Bailon

    I have been dealing with an IP, 75.89.239.16, who insists on the WP:BLP violating angle that the Bailon photo scandal was created by the article's subject herself, using links from questionable sources to attempt to prove their case, along with a video interview from Atlanta TV station WGCL where Jonathon Jaxson, who claims he knows Bailon as a friend says he planted the pics for her to create noterity. However, it is stated in the interview that unlike in the sources, he is not her agent in any way and Bailon's actual publicist has only spoken against the pictures themselves and not this allegation Bailon spread them, and even the gossip community completely discredits this 'representative', as he is involved in a defamation lawsuit filed by Perez Hilton, and may be sued by Bailon for the allegations of this incident. The other two sources include ContactMusic, a site which just aggragates news and does not have their own reporting team, and FoxNews.com's gossip section, which doesn't have much of a successful batting average when it comes to true rumors. And of course, Us Magazine's citing of "a source" could be almost anyone.

    The IP continues to add these links even though they clearly violate BLP and are not reputable sources. I have reverted them and was personally attacked by the IP for doing so. My aim for not including the links was based on WP:POINT and BLP. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    75.89.239.16 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I have been dealing with a guy that has continually deleted comments from the discussion section of the Adrienne Bailon article. Another Wikipedia user had posted a comment about Bailon's semi-nude photographs being discover. I made a comment that it should be mentioned since it's been in the news and that it was noteworthy. I even made reference that several websites have that had provided proof (from Bailon's own ex-publicist) that it was a stunt drummed up after Bailon's laptop was legitimately stolen in order to help gain her more exposure in her soon-to-be ex-Disney years. This guy unnecessarily deleted my comments the first time saying that I didn't have proof. I then go out and find several articles on the Internet relating to the Bailon hoax. This guy then changes his story from saying what I wrote was my own point of view & hearsay, to saying that none of the articles are reliable because the ex-publicist supposedly has an ax to grind. How does this Wikipedia user know that ax this guy may or may not have to grind with Bailon? Furthermore I pointed my findings in the discussion section of her page because it merited discussion, not in the article itself. Rarely do I ever update articles. This guy has seem more content to keep the discussion of the article one-sided than to look at both points of view. More and more sites are reporting this piece of information and Bailon has yet to admit or deny the news making round. I am not writing anything that I made up in my own mind...I have used sites either linked to the entertainment industry or links from reputable websites yet this guy feels the need to delete comments from the discussion forum of this article. Honestly, I find his actions to be uncalled for and detrimental to the purpose of this website. He even provided a video link from the guy who used to be Bailon's publicist then quickly dismissed it as not being reliable because he felt like that guy was acting like an ass (more or less) on television discussing the situation. As far as me personally attacking him, yes I did. I'm not going to deny it...maybe it was uncalled for but the guy is acting like he owns the entire site (in my opinion) and I'm sure this isn't the first article or discussion section of an article he's done this on. Fact of the matter is that Bailon's nude photo controversy may be an insignificant part of her life/career/or what have you, but it's a part of it. The fact that it's being reported on so-called "gossip" and "legit" sites alike make it even more noteworthy to be discussed on whether or not any of the situation should be added in her article at all.[reply]

    WP:BLP requires reliable sources. Have you provided any? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    75.89.239.16 (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I believe I have. I listed sites from US Magazine, Fox News, and Contact Music. There are others beyond what I listed that could or could not be more reputable than what I listed. Like I told that guy, all you got to do is do a Google or Yahoo Search.[reply]
    A search which included the term "adrienne bailon" hoax as you said in response to my concerns. That is clearly trying to make a point, as that only earns 21 Google News hits, all of them from gossip sites or just affiliates of a news aggregator. "adrienne bailon" pictures gives 321 Google News hits and is a much more neutral search term. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    75.89.239.16 (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Hmm, interesting you limited the search the "news" only. Even the most popular entertainer would have their search on places like Google & Yahoo reduced from thousands to mere hundreds, if not lower. That's not really all encompassing of what could be out there, now is it?[reply]
    But it does tend to limit the search to reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If Bailon fesses up herself or through authorized representation that she planted the tapes in a reputable magazine or newspaper, fine, I'll back off on this (but only with verifiable links). But for now based on the sources, this remains a rumor and fringe theory without any proof except by a guy looking out for himself (and who likely failed in an attempt to post an article about himself a few weeks ago), saying something to please morning news viewers on Atlanta's fourth rated news station and stir things up on his blog. I don't care what he thinks; I care about Bailon's opinion. And for now, she says they were stolen off her laptop at JFK. For now, that's the reliable story. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:Rebecca

    The said user above, already having received block seems not to have learnt to be Civil. Despite a reminder to watch WP:Civility for her language (and you can see such language has no place here, in fact this is the first time I have seen such lexical authority on wikipedia) she comes back as a warning to me, despite the fact that I came to agree with her general opinion in a more civil yet debatable manner. (i was agreeing, more directly, with another's arguement) Talk:Murder of Gwen Araujo#Notability shows her language, just press ctrl+f and "f***" (you know the order).
    Thank you Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't template long-term users. Especially if they've been here for five years. Especially if they're admins. HalfShadow 23:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget WP:Do template the regulars...occasionally we deserve it -t BMW c- 12:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She was blocked for edit warring so it's irrelevant to this discussion. She uses fuck once and to in reference to using a search engine. You warned her to be civil and as far as I can see she doesn't repeat her use of fuck. What is you want doing? Blocks are preventative in nature, what would a block prevent? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Cameron Scott, one use of "fucking" as an adjective is not violation of civility - and nor was the general tone (although it could have been more polite). However, to HalfShadow I would comment that I agree long term contributors and especially admins should not be templated if they violate guidelines, policies, etc. ... they should be fucking boilerplated in large type! If after many years contributing to the site they suddenly feel they don't have to follow the same practices as everyone else then their sensibilities on how they are warned on their talkpage is the very least of my concerns. I realise this is a minority view... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice mouth. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I Lol'd. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. :) Protonk (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop shouting, Lessie, you c*nt :) As to this Rebecca malarkey, it's too early to say whether she'll now be well-behaved, she has not repeated the behaviour. I personally don't swear on wiki unless it's in a jesting manner, but often it seems the longer people have been on wiki the more they feel the need to swear :) Sticky Parkin 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (de-lurk) - Ya think? :-D - Alison ❤ 02:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from those I mean that are here solely for the f'ing purpose, and no doubt do the same on other sites too.:) Sticky Parkin 03:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the f word. Sadly, every time I've tried to use it here, no matter how heedfully I tried to do so in a harmless, wordcrafting kind of way, I've been unhappy with how it was mistaken. The word has so much sway, one of the strongest in the English language, it seems bound to blind some editors. I've found it's not worth the kerfluffle. Fuck. :( Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck is a fine word at proper moments, with a very satisfying plosive stop, but I like the word kerfluffle better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, kerfluffle's a canny fit and fun one :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a group of women discussing the satisfaction of the use of "fuck" is an extremely diverting way of spending a few minutes... despite the kerfuffle that it will likely attract. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After a few beverages, it may become a kerfuckle. -t BMW c- 13:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. That sounds more to me like some kind of crustacean or molluscan seafood sold in one of those thousands of restaurants in Japan which have plastic models of their menu items on display in the front window. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) Err...those were models???? That may explain my intestinal issues my last trip to Japan. -t BMW c- 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another and yet another with pizza! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've known many a gaijin that survives by knowing only enough Japanese to be able to say his numbers after looking at the rack of model food in the window.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it. As I recall, I got by rather handily in restaurants and 7-11s with a Japanese vocabulary of maybe 30 words, half of which had to do with courtesies :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rahm Emmanuel

    Resolved

    Could someone uninvolved go over there and take a look at User:TPaineTX's edits? If I weren't involved, I'd have blocked him for edit warring, incivility, calling me a vandal, etc, etc. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Probably resolved. Some of the edits he reverted were blatantly unconstructive--not textbook vandalism, but not good content edits (the ip edits in the middle). But that didn't change the rest of the reverts/edit summaries/etc. He hasn't posted an unblock request, but I'm open for review by anyone lurking here. However, assuming the block was ok, this can be marked as resolved. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by User:Yankees10

    When viewing my watchlist, I just noticed this edit summary, in which User:Yankees10 referred to another editor as a "piece of shit low life cock-sucking looser user." I haven't the slightest idea of what conflict this remark pertains to, but Yankees10 obviously needs to be warned and advised to abide by WP:NPA. I would do so myself, but I recently was involved in a content dispute with this individual. —David Levy 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On the other side, User:IceFrappe has been edit warring. Grsz11 →Review! 00:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a content dispute, slooooowly being worked out in WP:Baseball. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you've warned IceFrappe. Could you please warn Yankees10 as well? No matter whose fault the dispute is, personal attacks are unacceptable. —David Levy 00:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Aside) Baseball Bugs isn't an administrator; you (David Levy) have as much authority to warn Yankees10 for personal attacks as Bugs (or, indeed myself. If I wasn't so lazy I suppose I could issue a warning instead of posting here. Hmmm) :-)
    Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't really warn anyone, I just advised the strawberry milkshake to take his dispute to WP:Baseball. I figured Yankees10 would see it there anyway, thus I admit to similar laziness. :) I did say "Beware of risking violating the 3-revert rule." That is sort of a warning, I guess, albeit a wimpy one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was referring to the standard 3RR warning that you left at User talk:IceFrappe. Could you please place {{subst:template:uw-npa2|User:Yankees10}} ~~~~ at User talk:Yankees10? —David Levy 00:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not issue a standard warning, I merely made the single comment noted above. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have now posted a similarly-lame "warning" and word of advice at Yankee10's page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. It was Grsz who posted the warning directly above your comment. —David Levy 01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am an administrator, but that's irrelevant. Any user in good standing (administrator or not) can issue such a warning. As I noted above, I recently was involved in a content dispute with Yankees10. It was unrelated to this one, but I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. (I'm especially concerned that Yankees10 might attribute the warning to a grudge on my part.) —David Levy 00:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yankees was warned by User:Wknight94 and promptly removed it. Nobody was irresponsible, he was warned before you even brought it up here. Grsz11 →Review! 00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really rather they focus their energies on the project page and get this little issue settled. But if they won't listen... Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of abiding by WP:NPR WP:NPA is separate from whatever is being argued. I just want to make sure that Yankees10 is aware of that policy. That's all. —David Levy 01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has a policy about National Public Radio??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?
    Cute. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a complaint, not a warning or pointer to WP:NPR. I said nothing about anyone being "irresponsible," but I don't understand why someone can't simply post a standard warning template and be done with it. —David Levy 01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DTTR. I left a note, he acknowledged. Show's over. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't cite WP:NPA, and I have no knowledge that Yankees10 is familiar with it.
    Regarding WP:DTTR, if one even chooses to follow it, I reject the notion that anyone referring to another editor as a "piece of shit low life cock-sucking looser user" should be regarded as someone connected enough with Wikipedia policy for the underlying principles to apply. —David Levy 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Wknight94 was sufficiently clear. He and I and Yankees10 are all frequent contributors to baseball articles, so we're not strangers. And while Yankees10 obviously took a hot-headed approach, the approach taken by the strawberry milkshake has also been very annoying. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know nothing about the conflict and take no one's side. I just wanted to ensure that Yankees10 was advised of the relevant policy. That's all. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This, specifically: [58] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a complaint and request to stop, not an advisement of the relevant policy or warning of the consequences of failing to abide by it. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha. There's a lesson here for me, I think, something about starting at the beginning, and reading all the way through. And checking whether both editors are admins, instead of just one. Apologies for the noise.
    Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 01:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, you could take the position of the judge who was alleged to have stated that in each case, he would listen to the plaintiff and form an opinion. When asked my he didn't listen to the other side, he said, "Because it gets me all mixed up!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've gone ahead and posted the template myself. Frankly, I'm stunned that a simple request led to so much energy being expended in this thread without said request being fulfilled. —David Levy 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a question for David Levy, what dispute were we in?--Yankees10 01:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way Wknight94 I read your comment, I didnt undo your edit to be a jerk, I dont want it on my talk page so I dont have a bad reputation--Yankees10 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a dispute regarding how to handle a situation in which two notable people share the same name (and Ken Griffey in particular). The thread is on your current talk page. —David Levy 01:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I remember now, why do you have my userpage on your watchlist anyway?--Yankees10 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Every talk page to which I've ever posted (including yours) is on my watchlist. The corresponding content pages (including your user page) automatically accompany them. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David what are you talking about? Yankee was warned before you even started this section, so what a template wasn't used. Grsz11 →Review! 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This contained absolutely no explanation of why the edit summary was inappropriate or pointer to WP:NPA. As noted above, I simply wanted to ensure that Yankees10 was familiar with that policy and advised of the consequences of failing to abide by it. Whether or not a template was used was of absolutely no concern to me (though I thought that posting one would have been easier for those who claimed to be too "lazy" to post a message there, yet didn't mind investing time and effort to state that here); I merely wanted the proper information to be conveyed. That's all. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David, I'm surprised that you really think that someone needs to be directed to Wikipedia policy to explain why calling someone a "piece of shit low life cock-sucking looser" is wrong. Yankees10 knows exactly why that's wrong and doesn't need policy to prove it to him. WP:DTTR is meant to dissuade exactly that type of process wonkery. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Levy must feel like he stepped on a hornet's nest. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also offended that Yankees10 doesn't know how to spell "loser". We Cubs fans, we know how to spell it, yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Well I was happy to leave it at a warning but that was like 30 edits ago! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, my spelling is beyond terrible--Yankees10 01:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I feel as though I stepped into the Twilight Zone. I don't understand how all of this could arise from simple request that a standard procedure be followed. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Twilight Zone works too. Although given the extreme conduct that often turns up here, maybe a better analogy is The Outer Limits. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were up to me, users engaging in such conduct would immediately be blocked until apologizing and agreeing to refrain from doing so again. But standard procedure is to make sure that a user has been warned and advised of WP:NPA before even considering a block.
    The logic, I assume, is that there are websites (including wikis) on which such behavior is permitted. That policy page and the corresponding templates exist to explain that Wikipedia isn't one of them. —David Levy 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could issue a short block to Yankees10 for vulgar attacks, but it would be unfair unless you didn't also issue a short block to Milkshake for edit-warring and refusing to work toward consensus despite pleas with him to do so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't intend to block anyone involved in whatever conflict is occurring. Aside from the fact that I recently was involved in a content dispute with Yankees10 (which is why I posted my request in the first place), blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Yankees10 has politely expressed an understanding of our policy against personal attacks, and there's no reason to assume that he doesn't intend to abide by it from now on.
    But yes, it always would be unfair and inappropriate to block only one party to a dispute if another has engaged in similarly problematic behavior. —David Levy 02:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that "you" was supposed be generic. And I think we're on the same page now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank goodness!  :-) —David Levy 02:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, after all this Brew-Ha-Ha, would it be asking too much for Yankees10 and Mr. Milkshake to settle all of this on the baseball project page, instead of playing ping-pong and mud-pie-throwing with the articles in question??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yankees10 seems to think he has ownership over all sports-related articles. A consensus was already reached months ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired (which Yankees 10 took part in) Please bow to established consensus and apologize for the unprovoked, unwarranted personal attack. Thank you--IceFrappe (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, I strongly urge administrators to issue a short block to prevent future transgression by Yankees10. Thank you--IceFrappe (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If I deserve a block, then you for sure deserve a block you have gone well over the 3RR.--Yankees10 06:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user cites a non-existent "consensus", which point was already made to him at WP:Baseball but he won't listen. I have reverted his latest changes along with the advice to take it back to the project page. Other users have reverted this guy also. It is he, in fact, who is being the most disruptive user in this mix. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Milkshake is actually the bully here, as he is going against several users. His call for a block against the main user he's arguing with, while gaming the system to reach but not exceed 3RR, would seem to call for some action. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    122.2.176.0/20 vandal back again.

    It seems that the 122.2.176.0/20 vandal is back to his misinforming ways. Check out the edits by 122.2.177.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which may be outside this range. I don't know if this guy has already vandalized some articles under different addresses before this since the block expired. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, the Manilla, Philippines, vandal - that ip has just had a short wikibreak enforced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV WP:Undue weight WP:Fringe Wikipedia:Recentism and perhaps others.

    The Grossmont Union High School District article had so many potential problems, I didn't know where else to post an alert on it. Edits made after the election [[59]][[60]][[61]][[62]][[63]] may contain possible problems. Some of them I revertd, but they were placed back. After a brief discussion, I decided to allow him to keep the information for now, as long as he cleaned it up a bit, but I made it clear that I was still not in favor of the information and would seek an outside opinion. I mulled it over for a few days and decided to ask about it on this page, rather than to four separate notice boards. Could someone take a look and explain it to the other editor or if I am wrong, explain it to me. Please feel free to leave comments on the article talk page, since I don't think the other editor knows about this notice board. Thank you in advance.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trapdoorfloor

    Trapdoorfloor (talk • contribs) has been adding questionable material to the Toyota article.

    • November 9, - I moved several sections with poorly sourced, POV material to the talk page [64]
    • Two other editors commented on the poor quality of the sources and the material.
    • Trapdoorfloor reinserted the POV material later that day and added to it [65]
    • November 9 - User:Trapdoorfloor adds same material to Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas [66]. Reverted by Kuru [67] with edit summary "mv commentary sourced to blog."
    • Reverts and is warned by Kuro [68]
    • Warned about 3RR [69]
    • Use of suspected sock User:Squeedo [70] total of six reverts by TDF & Squeedo.
    • November 12 - I again removed the material with a note to join the discussion on the talk page [71] TDF reinserted it into the article without edit summary [72]
    • November 13 - TDF reinserted the material and was reverted by Stepho-wrs with the edit summary "Revert - see discussion page." [73]
    • November 15 - reinserts material [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. Reverted by me (X 4) & Stepho-wrs; Warned by me [80], [81] & attempts to reason with him by Stepho-wrs [82] & me [83]
    • Suggest a block. Sunray (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the account for 31 hours and left this comment at their talkpage. If this account resumes edit warring upon the block expiry then issue a final warning and report it to WP:AIV if violated - but in the meantime please try and discuss the appropriate way of including (some of) the content they wish to bring to the article(s). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The break will allow me to get my head around his piece and see if we can write it from an NPOV. I will try to work with him, but if he goes on reverting I will warn him, then report it. Sunray (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoelmo

    This is a little complex for AIV, so I'm putting it here. Yoelmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already has six hoax articles under his belt

    He is at final warning stage for hoax albums, and has been warned by Kurt Shaped Box for inserting false information into discographies.

    Today, I found him inserting bogus information into discographies again.

    I don't think another warning is the answer ... I think it's time for a tap with the blockstick.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From my review I feel that this account operates according to their own impression (and imagination) of what encyclopedia creation is. I think any block should be indefinite, and that an undertaking need be given that future editing will be based around sourced/verifiable references if it were to be lifted. As this might be considered draconian I prefer other tariffs or sanctions be discussed before any are implemented. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the useful edits this user has made are very minor and in many cases thrown into doubt by the large number of unverifiable ones. I cannot see much profit in allowing him to continue without a very good explanation for what he's been doing. ~ mazca t|c 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the question in your edit history: "are any of these edits good?", the answer is that he has made a number of trivial, but valid edits. "Trivial" needs to be emphasised.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why this would be considered draconian; this editor is harming the project, has received several warnings (including final warnings), refuses to communicate, and continues his pattern of BS edits. RBI. Tan | 39 14:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took another stroll through Yoelmo's contribs, and blocked indefinitely. As LessHeard observed, if they want to dispute it and "mend their ways", that's up to them. Tan | 39 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. KWW has a good handle on these sorts of "pop-music-hoax" accounts. I was leary to block this account before; it was originally thought to be a sock of one of a number of frequent vandals that do exactly this sort of thing, however checkuser came back negative, and I was originally leary of applying the WP:DUCK test, as I had reasons, based on the specific nature of the edits, that this was unrelated to the other, now blocked, sockfarm. However, even if not related to the other sockfarm, it has clearly done enough damage on its own to be blocked of its own right. Good call, and thanks as usual to KWW for his/her vigilance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly threatening email

    I just received the following email from Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), in connection with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). I brought it up in IRC, slightly concerned, and we concluded that I should probably bring it here, just in case we're misreading the final paragraph.

    I'm not overly concerned about him reporting me to the MoD, as they'll tell him that they're not interested, regardless of what I do, and in any case he doesn't have my name. However, the last paragraph does concern me, as it reads as an underhand threat. So:

    1. Is this an underhand threat?
    2. If it is, could someone drop him a friendly note asking him to not do it again?

    Thanks for your time. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a legal threat. I've blocked him indef pending retraction. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I really read that as a good-faith warning rather than any kind of veiled threat. However, I'm not familiar with past interactions between these people so I might be missing some context. ~ mazca t|c 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted a second opinion, I wasn't fishing for a block. There's very little past interaction other than on that AfD. Gwen doesn't seem to be overly vindictive though, given her history and what I've seen of her, so I'll trust in her judgement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was clearly an underhanded threat meant to chill discussion and further editing straight off, by hinting the editor could be reported to a government ministry which has the power to discharge, fine, demote and even imprison its employees. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. It's right on the vague edge of WP:NLT, and he'll probably claim he was joking ("we are not fighting against the French here") but it was extremely ill-judged and he needs to explain himself. Black Kite 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm British (pure European mongrel British at that - Celts, Romans, Danes, Huguenots, Saxons, Normans and all of the other contributors to the bloodline up to a hundred years or so ago) and can safely say the Colonel is engaging in the practice of promoting claptrap in the hope of influencing a content dispute. Keep them blocked until they realise that what they were attempting is simply not cricket. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has replied on his talkpage. Black Kite 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LessHeard vanU, the issue isn't about content (claptrap or not), but about comments that can chill discussion. Such comments come in many forms such as legal threats, personal threats, outing, intimidation, etc., and they must be discouraged. In this case, it is indeed a minor subject matter, as indicated by the comments, but CW needs to learn to refrain from such actions and I'm sure he will retract upon explanation. This will be a learning experience for him. -- Fyslee / talk 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm going to tell your boss, and I know who he is" is bad enough threat when you're a normal working Joe (or Jolene). When your boss is the Military (who have a wider range of military laws/rules than you and I will ever see, with permanent repercussions for even seemingly minor infractions). As such, the "Colonel" (of course, also a military term) would know this, and that makes this an even more valid and vicious threat that the standard version. I highly support the original block, and recommend against removal - and in fact will recommend for longer. His "reply" is pure claptrap. -t BMW c- 16:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. As an American, that last sentence comes off immediately as "stfu or I'll report you to MoD!". It really only seems like a good faith warning if you read it as one.--Koji† 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm British, and I find this behaviour deplorable. This is clearly outside the acceptable range and I'm surprised that CW thought this was - over a category about bow-ties... I support Gwen's block in this instance. (I've had both agreements and disagreements with CW in the past, but have found he seems to try to goad users he disagrees with into precipitous actions, or at least comes close to it. This time he overdid it.) Verbal chat 16:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, fully endorse the block. That reads as "don't cross me again or else..."; the AfD itself might be trivial, but the sentiment behind the threat isn't. In military parlance, this chap needs to wind his neck in. EyeSerenetalk 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully endorse this block and concur with Verbal's observation of goading. Support unblocking if statement clarified and retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. This user should remain blocked, forever. This is not simply a "legal threat" where we block until retraction. It's pure blackmail. There's a difference: "legal threat" blocks are when we say: "okay, you might have what you feel is a legitimate legal complaint against this other user; we can't stop you from pursuing the appropriate legal remedy in real life, only please don't edit Wikipedia during that time; you can come back once that's resolved." But here, there is no possible scenario where a complaint to Chase Me's military superiors would be an appropriate way of resolving a dispute. The whole idea that there might be some connection between Chase Me's actions on that AfD and his military job, indeed the whole idea that there might be anything to "warn" him about, and be it only in a "friendly" way, is something that could only possibly be construed in the mind of a criminal real-life harasser. By just saying that he isn't planning of making such a complaint "himself"(!), as his defense has now been, he is not distancing himself from this distasteful implication. Immediate community ban, no discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I don't have a problem with this block, per se, but I still find it hard to interpret this as a legal threat. I can see a valid point that this was an unnecessary escalation of a dispute over a minor issue (are the MOD really going to care if one of their people is arguing about bow-ties?) but in terms of legal threats that require an indef-block until withdrawn I really can't see it. I'd support a block for incivility via vague personal threats, but having reviewed WP:NLT it seems pretty tenuous to link it to that. ~ mazca t|c 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it isn't a legal threat. It's much worse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really think this was far too vague a threat to leap to that assumption. Yes, I can certainly interpret it as the same kind of thing as the old "Nice cat, be a shame if someone accidentally burned it" threat, but I still stand by my initial reading of it as a good-faith warning. Given no history of conflict between these two it seems an irrational escalation with a logical alternative explanation. ~ mazca t|c 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget, most systems of Military Law have the concept of "conduct unbecoming", which is used for everything from spitting on the sidewalk to masturbating in public. No matter the severity, it's usually rather career-limiting. -t BMW c- 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been swayed by Fut's argument and retracted my support of unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, BMW's statement is correct. It falls under the Naval Discipline Act, but is (usually) a somewhat trivial offence. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)
    I also agree with FPaS' summary. Keep blocked, determine a period. We shouldn't be seeing people threatened like this. Seraphim♥ 17:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) This is really vexing me. I see this as basically leaping to a permanent ban of an individual with a clean block log and, to my knowledge, no major history of this kind of thing: and basing it on a single incident with an alternative innocent explanation. It seems like a real failure of WP:AGF, and I'm starting to wonder if I haven't missed something important. While I can understand a block here if it's decided he was probably being threatening, a finite and reasonably short duration needs to be determined, in my view. ~ mazca t|c 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <--(unindent) First off, I have returned Wikipedia:Harassment to its status prior to the change made after a single thread on AN/I in October.[84][85] There is *no* community consensus on how to deal with these situations; each case must be reviewed on its merits. While Arbcom had one theory during the Durova case, the fact is that every attempt to deprecate publication of emails has met with failure when discussed amongst the wider community.

    As to this particular case, there is no legal threat. It is reasonable to perceive that there is an allusion to creating real-life problems for CMLITC, but the email does not threaten to sue him or even to report him to the police. Colonel Warden has made an apology. I propose that the indefinite block be lifted. Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Risker (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Blocking is also educational, and also for the good of the project (otherwise why indef blocks at all), and there is a legal threat as there is a legal status to complaints in the military. Legal or not, a threat of this kind should resort in an immediate block while the situation is dealt with. If this block is lifted, it should be replaced with an educational block of some appropriate length - unless the community does decide on an indef. Verbal chat 17:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in something of a quandary here; I fully support Gwen Gales block for the intent behind the email sent to 'Chase me' and I now recognise that this is just one episode in an unseemly series of inappropriate communications from Colonel Warden in attempts to sway XfD's in which they have an interest. However, the Col. has now retracted the comments originally complained of. Despite this, there seems to be a growing consensus that the entirety of the Col's similar actions need be addressed and the block has not been undone. My problem is that if we are falling into a block/ban discussion on the account then perhaps we ought to make that plain - retitling or subtitling the (subsequent) discussion. Otherwise we should unblock the account and open a User RfC. I'm happy either way, but perhaps we should formalise the process to allow a full spectrum of comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If valid concerns exist about CW's edits, then an unblock followed by a User RfC sounds reasonable to me. I have no particular opinion either way on Colonel Warden's overall behaviour, but morphing a single-incident resolved legal threat block into a ban for something else is probably not the way to go about it. ~ mazca t|c 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, based on the merits, that being a specific note that "you're military, and I'm telling the military brass unless..." which would therefore fall under the Naval Discipline Act, then this is, indeed, a legal threat. There's unfortunately no other way to look at it. The length of the block is the only question now. Personally, I prescribe a 48hr preventative block, and keep an eye on the Colonel's activities for a month. -t BMW c- 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a legal threat. Along the lines of Fut.Perf.'s thinking though, given the way it was worded, I'd say it's one of the most chilling I've ever seen. I won't unblock until Colonel Warden heedfully acknowledges it was indeed an email threat meant to sway the Cavalry's behaviour, that he now understands that legal threats of any kind, never mind how craftily worded, aren't allowed here and that he'll never do anything like it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even taking the message at its harshest ("I will tell your bosses"), that is not a legal threat. No law enforcement or court proceeding is threatened. It may be nasty, but it isn't a legal threat. Risker (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry ... I've had to cover a number of courts-martial. Although I'm not an "expert", can you advise why you seem to be more qualified with the interpretation of Military Law? "Tell a military boss" is serious. -t BMW c- 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See the many comments above as to why it is a legal threat. Also, I fully support Gwen's actions here. Verbal chat 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing about whether it is a legal threat or in violation of policy X or rule Y is missing the point and somewhat irrelevant. Regardless of policy, the behaviour is obviously unacceptable and needs to be prevented; the method of prevention is all that needs to be discussed. CIreland (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What Risker may not understand is that most meaningful behavioural breaches in the military are handled through regulations, laws, reviews, lawyers and courts which are all within the military and have the same sway as civil law over members of the military. Hence, a legal threat. I would also agree though, the behaviour is harassment either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the ball is in Colonel Warden's court. Once he acknowledges the inappropriate language within the email (whether it is a legal threat or not being unimportant in that context) and retracts it then the account can be unblocked per Gwen Gales original comment when placing the template. Any further foolishness of this manner, and the account can be again be blocked indefinitely - but this time under WP:STUPID (WHAT BIT DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) Of course, he's likely reading this ANI (and not responding) knowing that due to some seeds of doubt sown by those unknowing of military law, know he's about to get away with a serious threat, and laughing his butt off. -t BMW c- 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not responding on ANI because he's blocked .......... Pedro :  Chat  18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he responds on his talk I'm sure someone will copy it across. Verbal chat 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly!! -t BMW c- 18:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) So, having thought about this for an hour or so, I have to say I have become even more concerned. Rather than leave a message about the AfD on Cavalry's talkpage (where everyone could see it), CW decided to send it via an e-mail instead, apparantly hoping/thinking that a darkly-worded statement would not be brought up back on Wikipedia, and/or would have a much more powerful effect. If Cavalry and CW had a history of such "intimate" conversation, then it's possibly one thing - but an out-of-the-blue message like this is definately different. This, added to the Military Law aspect noted above makes this even more concerning of an action. -t BMW c- 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You make an interesting point there. Cavalry might well have felt too intimidated to bring it up publicly, whereas if CW had placed it on Cavalry's talk page obviously that wouldn't be an issue. As you say, in conjunction with the Military Law aspect, it's very concerning. dougweller (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Bwilkins' read of this. Closing a message with
    "I would not trouble to write normally since such spats are routine on Wikipedia and this is a trivial matter. But, in your case, you publically represent [organization], and so should be on your best behaviour. ...
    More generally, you should be careful to avoid unseemly brawls on Wikipedia while you advertise your position in [organization]. Such activity makes enemies and they might then report you to [your employer] who might take a dim view of the matter."
    has only one reasonable interpretation. Whether or not Colonel Warden actually had the ability to carry out such a threat, I have great difficulty reading his remarks as anything other than an intent to stifle discussion by intimidating Cavalry. Such an approach merits a significant block, a final warning, and investigation as to whether or not he should be banned entirely (if, for example, he has made any other such threats). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to play devil's advocate here, if the same message had been sent by someone who is an administrator, would you feel the same way? Risker (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see where there would be a difference. To be honest, the original AfD is about what I personally see as a trivial list. However, it mentions a subject near and dear to CW's heart, and CW has had involvement in it. A good (impartially-acting) admin would not become involved in the same way. Now, alluded to above, it the admin was someone with whom Cavalry had a pre-existing e-mail relationship with may be different. That said, an admin/friend would not have put the dark undertone in the e-mail ... it would be more of a "dude, relax" as opposed to "I know you're military, I'm telling on you". If someone (even an admin) e-mailed something to me saying "I'm going to report your edits to the journalism integrity board", or even suggest that they were falsely narking on me for plagiarism, I'd go through the roof. -t BMW c- 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. When have I every indicated otherwise? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To add my comment, yes, I would have felt the same way, I have have queried it in IRC and then brought it up here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Hopefully we don't approve the RfA's of too many admins who are stupid enough to send threatening emails to editors they're in content disputes with... and would be looking seriously at desysopping were that the case ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent) We gave User:Sceptre a long block (3 months) for anonymous name calling (and subsequent socking). I think threatening someone's career is lot worse. Seraphim♥ 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible solutions

    This is getting a bit long, so maybe it should be drawn to a close. Possible solutions below. I'm staying neutral, obviously! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep block indefinite until CW clarifies that they understand the language, and the choice of correspondence, was utterly inappropriate and they retract and apologise for the seeming threat. Lift block with warning as to any further use of "pursuasive" comments not related to subject will result in block with a view to a ban discussion being opened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great admiration to Cavalry for staying impassive and neutral. CW has already retracted any "legal threat" (perceived or otherwise). Unblock. Advise CW that the communities patience is not exhausted, but any similar repercussion (on wiki or brought to wiki via email) will result in another idef block with virtually no chance of anyone removing it - hence a community ban. CW does some valuable work here. The question is when he will become more trouble than his work warrants. Hopefully he will learn from this he is neither infallible nor is his view always right which seems to be the case at present. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the problem was the the remarks were a legal threat, so much as a threat, full stop. Since Cavalry is being such a good sport about this I won't actively oppose an unblock here, but I'm not going to go out on a limb and recommend one, either. AGFing with all my might, I can possibly see how Warden may have simply demonstrated spectacularly, blindingly, overwhelmingly bad judgement here instead of intentionally making a very thinly-veiled threat — but users who make a habit of demonstrating such astonishly bad judgement about their words are dangerous and disruptive even if working in good faith. If Warden is unblocked here, it should be on the condition that if he ever makes any sort of threat, warning, caution, or advisory of this sort again he will be blocked permanently. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with ten and pedro here. He's a long term editor in good standing who made a serious mistake. I would support an unblock so long as he knew how serious his actions were. I don't think it is worth it to demand an apology. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what its worth I think the block shold be changed to a week. It's quite obvious he isn't going to show contrition but that's no reason to block him indefinitely. A week would be a good warning against repeats of that sort of behaviour but would still allow him to get back in the game soon! The muffin is not subtle (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I truly think he won't be doing anything like this again soon, so I can't see how a week-long block would be fitting. If I'm wrong, a reblock will likely be swift and indef. This was his first block, the consensus here is that the legal threat has been retracted and I'd much rather have him back in the fold and editing helpfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than bouncing-up-and-down thrilled about the unblock, but if you think he won't do it again, then no harm done. However, if he so much as sneezes in a threatening manner, especially via e-mail which I have no doubt he KNOWS is treated as privileged correspondence, I would advocate the bringing down of not only the banhammer, but the ban-screwdriver, the ban-socket-wrench, and possibly the ban-router-table as well.GJC 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and don't forget the ban saw. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen, stop jumping on the ban wagon with the analogies. Honestly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arrgh. Must. Not. Complain. -t BMW c- 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can he at least be reduced in rank to Lt ?? This whole thing was pretty rank. -t BMW c- 01:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All I know is, there's a colonel of truth in here somewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the corporal punishment has been dished out, and there seems to be no reason to make a major issue of it any more. I think Chase me ladies has behaved admirally though. EyeSerenetalk 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I get an indefinite block reviewed

    Resolved
     – Block endorsed by three other administrators. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefintitely blocked for complete disregard of the biographies of living persons policy in spite of numerous warnings. Moreover, it is fairly obvious that the individual operating the account contributes largely anonymously and that this account is used only when the article is semi-protected. (See the histories of Daniel A. McGowan, Jeff Rense, Gilad Atzmon and others).

    I would like a review of this block as the account has not previously been blocked. CIreland (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this block, given the edits. If he fancies making an unblock request, I encourage him to do so, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. We can't be too careful with WP:BLP, and the sort of material (s)he's inserting should probably be proposed on the talk pages first, with sources. It may be that some of it might end up in the articles, but edit-warring isn't the way to go about things. EyeSerenetalk 17:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. In addition to the above, the confrontational edit summaries aren't very helpful either - "Must once again revert INCESSENT POV vandalism", "He should be banned for his POV violations", etc. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    118.100.200.28

    Resolved
     – given 12 hours break to read some policies. --Rodhullandemu 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comes under the "not obvious vandalism" banner, so I'm reporting here instead of AIV. Despite multiple warnings, 118.100.200.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists on adding links to a Malaysian radio countdown show's charts. As the IP has been told, this fails WP:CHARTS restriction against charts related to countdowns. The IP does not discuss or respond, it simply continuously adds the chart to every song on the chart.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I took this to AIV, they work quicker over there. ;-) — Realist2 18:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 12 hours by Rodhull. — Realist2 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Move vandalism

    Resolved

    Could somone look at the recent contribs of User:Kikkid851? I fixed what I could but I'm not sure what the best way is to move Darlin' back to where it should be, and not to 254gihyut5. The talk page needs to be moved back, too. Thanks. MookieZ (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Darlin' was a junk article too. It was simply a cut-and-paste move from Daft Punk. I will presently be deleting all of these junk articles as vandalism... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I Think I fixed it all. The Darlin' article now redirects correctly, and the other article was deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left an exlpicit warning to the user to stop it, or they would be blocked. They are a sporadic user with a past history of good faith edits. If they make the same problematic edits again, they can and will be blocked. Lets see what they do. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the quick response. MookieZ (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for formal community ban of 75.X.X.X user who constantly harrasses Arcayne by bringing up old discussions about his credentials ad nauseam

    OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

    • Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
    • Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

    What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.
    This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lion King

    Resolved
     – Semi-protected two weeks by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone please help. I'm fighting against too many IP socks. Need an admin to protect the page. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Everyme

    Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite blocked 3 weeks for harrassing and attacking myself and other editors, is continuing to make abusive edits with an IP, saying he's proud to be blocked for harassing among other things. He has used 78.34.143.14 (talk · contribs) and 78.34.152.243 (talk · contribs). He goes into a particular rant here, accusing me of all kinds of funny stuff, calling myself and other users idiots. In his unblock request (done through on of he IPs) he attacks several users, and says I should be banned here. I've very minimally interacted with Everyme, and his attacks and harrassment continued despite a block need addressed. Grsz11 →Review! 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected his talk page, to anonymous editors from masquerading as him. If he wants to edit it, he can log in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, I think there are two sides to this coin. Could another admin offer a second opinion? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Everyme should log in to edit his talk page. Editing with his IP when under a block seems wrong - not in policy but just in practice. I'd recommed Grszll unwatch Everyme's talk page to be honest. I'm not sure that there are statements here that require punative block extensions; having been on the negative side of Everyme's backlashes I do empathise but it may be easier to just move on here. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't watched his talk. Just came across it now. I'm just irritated that I've rarely interacted with him and he acts like this. Grsz11 →Review! 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I can drop it and wait to see what happens when he's back. Semi-protection is sufficient, but what about the other pages he has edited on those IPs? Grsz11 →Review! 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAA, but User:Casliber seems to have been sympathetic to Everyme here; perhaps they might be able to offer an alternate point of view. the skomorokh 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are concerned that ip's are deliberately impersonating Everyme to poison the well, then that would be grounds for a CheckUser. If the ip's are not Everyman then the ip's (or range, see below) should be blocked. If CU confirms that it is Everyme, then the block extends per WP:EVADE and the ip's are blocked as required - up to a rangeblock if the CU determines no/minimal collateral damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noted this bit: "Anyhow, I don't really give a fuck about the block, because I will of course just ignore it when it comes to minor mainspace edits.". Seemingly admitting he'll evade his block. Grsz11 →Review! 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To both LHVU and Grsz11 - the IP's have only edited Everymen's talk and therefore evading the block and the comment above are moot unless they do otherwise. As I say, Everyme should, IMHO, edit under his logged in account but blocking the IP's seems pointless (unless they are not Everyme of course) Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He also used 78.34.129.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was blocked at the same time the username was. The others are in the same range, tracing to Cologne, where Everyme is from. Grsz11 →Review! 22:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I would like CU confirmation first, many username accounts can log out and become an ip that edits another editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Such as I am doing now. 88.110.223.96 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Even if it seems obvious, a CU can remove any doubt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree a CU may add value. But the Everyme account was not blocked with talk page editing disabled. If the IP's return from CU as Everyme's, and they have only edited his talk, then he is not evading the terms of his block. I know this is the wrong way round to use semi protection, but here it would seem (on the face of it) to force Everyme to edit his talk whilst logged in, create no possible collateral damage, and remove any doubt on who is making comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That raises an interesting point, Everyme can admit to his evasion with his own name on his own talkpage - but chooses to do so as the ip... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One IP edits the talk page only, the other edits other userspace pages. Grsz11 →Review! 23:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason to cut this editor any slack. Long history of disruptive and tendentious editing, incivility, and misuse of tools. looie496 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, between his histrionics on election day (about how Obama's page MUST! BE! PROTECTED! NOW! or we would all be somehow complicit in WW 4), and the totally-out-of-pocket comments that got him blocked in the first place (that logged-out Penthouse-Forum-esque post on Grsz's talkpage, now deleted) I'm going to have to agree with Looie496 on this one. Everyme seems to be suffering from advanced WikiStress, and apparently could use a nice long break--and that goes for his flying IP-monkeys, too.GJC 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (sigh) I thought the he made at least one valid point on the Obama page I agreed with, and I thought the logged out post as silly (he said a similar thing to me once) rather than jaw-droppingly offensive as such; I also agreed with the idea of a full-protection of the Obama page. The American election has aroused alot of emotions in alot of people, and I think a three week block in the aftermath of that was excessive. However, having partaken in the previous RfC, and been aware of numerous previous issues I can see why the action was taken. I am pretty busy today both on and off-wiki and need to read a whole pile of diffs if I can put forth any argument for leniency or finding a way forward. Keeper76 is the other editor whose input may be of value. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Woooooo - the return of HBC AIV helperbot (7)!

    Resolved
     – LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) has finished having worryingly enthusiastic moments over bots (That is, automated data processing scripts; I am still worryingly enthusiastic regarding bottoms - specifically human female ones.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There goes my edit count... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    need help with libellous, unsourced info repeatedly being added to multiple articles by the same person

    please look at this person's contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NewtTheDog and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.207.252.64, which appears to be the same person. they continue to edit war over including some serious and unsourced allegations about a living person. their blatant agenda only appears to involve unsourced libel. they've been warned, but do not appear to be interested in dialogue or learning how to edit wikipedia properly. all i can do is revert, but maybe an admin could step in and stop them for a while. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick look at this reveals two things--he's misrepresenting a source, and there's two other accounts involved as well, RegulatorXXV (talk · contribs) and SSS888zbc (talk · contribs). All three accounts blocked indef as BLP-violating SPAs/socks. I'm also semi-protecting the pages in question--any other admin feel free to reverse the semi-protects if this is too much. Blueboy96 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Closed AfD as Keep, nothing else to see here. Black Kite 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Boris Kreiman just went to AFD here. I just reverted a series of deletions by the nominator BBiiis08. I would appreciate if someone would look at it. I am not saying that a nom should never edit an article after nom'ing it, (although it is probably a very good idea) nor am I saying he did this in bad faith, but he *did* remove the wikilink to List of chess grandmasters (which lists Boris as a grand master and is sourced) and then placed a FACT tag on the claim, then removed the source that was quoting about him. I don't want to jump to conclusions, which is why I simply explained in the afd that I put them back. In my singular opinion, this isn't good practice even when in the best of faith. As for the rest, I will leave that up to the admins. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There can be very valid reasons to remove sources before/during and after an AFD, particularly if it is a BLP. However, in this case, the article is likely to be kept anyway. If you object to sources being removed, discuss it on the talk page, or go to dispute resolution. If you think the sources might sway the AfD, note them on the AfD itself. Ultimately, unless someone is edit warring, or engaged in blatant disruption, it is a content and not an admin issue.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have to follow up on this a bit -- the AfD was just closed by BlackKite as a "speedy keep", but there's some odd things going on here. A Google search for "Boris Kreiman" brings up a lot of exceptionally weird stuff. Apparently in addition to being a chess player (where he was involved in a significant controversy at one point) he is a poker player, weightlifter, and other stuff. Apparently he managed to get hold of a domain called http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com, which had previously been used to post skeptical things, and used it to attack James Randi -- see this while it lasts. Neither the article nor the AfD mention any of this, but I suspect that the nominator knew about it, because his contribs show a strong interest in "skepticism". I realize that none of this particular demands any action, but thought it might be worth inserting for completeness. looie496 (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't really a speedy keep, but more that a contentious AfD on someone who passes WP:BIO for athletes and has 50 Google News hits to boot seemed a bit pointless. Including anything other than his chess exploits in the article is, of course, subject to our normal editing rules. Black Kite 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennifer Love Hewitt trolling

    Resolved
     – Blocked by myself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much to waste time on here. We've got a civil troll on a BLP. Can someone look at the talk page and contributions of 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk · contribs) and then indef block him (they speak for themselves). See the numerous warnings and my final warning on his talk page.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked. Very few good edits, and extremely unlikely to respond to reason. Wikipedia is like fly paper for conspiracy theorists. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I mess up, or...?

    Seeing what looked to me like an edit war over a sock tag on a userpage I'd been watching, I page-protected User talk:Runteldat after a variant on the tag in question had been replaced by NeutralHomer. A few minutes later, I received this note on my talk page, which made me say "???":

    Hello, is the protection of User:Runteldat user/talk pages in response to something, as I would like to have seen a response before blocking....just in the off chance it was an unrelated (to Rollo) editor.--NeutralHomer

    I replied on NH's talkpage that it was in response to an editwar, and that IMHO, if the user had anything to say, he would have been better-served by speaking up instead of just silently removing the tag repeatedly. NH replied that he hadn't seen the editwar, so I guess that issue is resolved--but since a question was raised about the propriety of the page-protection: was it the right thing to do, or should I have waited a while first? Thanks... GJC 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't notice the edit-war as it happened before I posted the tag or I would ahve reported it (sorry). - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 00:15
    I reverted to JimWae. I think protection was the right call, and that NeutralHomer made an honest mistake. In short, I think the matter has been thoroughly resolved, I'd say tag this section resolved. --Gutza T T+ 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutralhomer just notified me that User:Runteldat is not in fact blocked -- and he's correct. So this is really a mess, the sockpuppet/block note is inappropriate (I'm not judging whether it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not appropriate at this time), and on top of that the image it purports to show the evidence for sockpuppetry is missing. Can anyone clarify this? --Gutza T T+ 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rollosmokes (which User:Runteldat is supposed to be his sock) was one who uploaded that image and would revert to that image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:17

    Ah, so the plot thickens -- now we seem to need to decide whether that is a sock indeed, before deciding anything else. I'll try to investigate the matter, time permitting -- if anyone has the time and disposition to do so please drop a line here so we don't duplicate the effort. --Gutza T T+ 01:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can apply for a checkuser on both accounts, if you like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:23

    As far as I was able to tell until now, that's indeed a sock -- but I'm trying to determine whether there really is anyone without sin here, 'cause I see foul play on the other side as well. --Gutza T T+ 01:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested a checkuser. I am not great with these, so if others would like to add more to the checkuser request, please go here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:30
    I saw the edit you linked to and that one strikes me as odd to, so I added "Liradio" as a percaution. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 16, 2008 @ 01:35

    Here's what I was able to gather:

    • The whole thing seems to have began with User:Liradio adding Image:Wpixcw11.png on Oct 6th (business as usual)
    • Oct 13th, Liradio removes "orphaned" template from the image (template added by bot on Oct 12th)
    • Oct 15th, Liradio adds new, "slightly edited" version of the logo;
    • Nov 15th, bot tags it as fair use orphaned, and on the same day User:Mrschimpf re-adds it to the article.

    In fact this has actually been going on since at least May 2007 (!), see Talk:WPIX#Current WPIX_Logo. Again, that's May 2007, not May 2008 -- quite impressive indeed! Both users (Rollosmokes and Liradio) seem to think they properly represent the radio station -- Rollosmokes insists on the formal side, Liradio insists on the "insider" angle. Neither of the two strictly follow rules or etiquette (Rollosmokes obviously employs socks, Liradio removes the other party's comments).

    In short, either this is some sort of lame publicity stunt, or we have a couple of users hung up on a silly dispute (at least that's how I see it from the outside). I'll wait for the checkuser request to go through before deciding anything. --Gutza T T+ 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe the Plumber

    I would like to ask for a specific injunction on the said page, that any uninvolved administrator who sees the page may give out a warning and immediately apply a block upon more than 1 reversion. From what I can tell, this kind of thing is already done on occasion for certain hotly contested pages. Doubtless, this page has already been brought up on the messageboards, and as such, consensus on this may be difficult. But the edit warring is absolutely out of hand: [91]. The page was just recently protected again to prevent warring from someone who had simply jumped on the page, started pressing the revert button, and who has that kind of history elsewhere. This ought to be avoided by a simple warning. Quite simply put: certain parties are harming the page much more than helping it, and perhaps should not be able to throw around reversions. The page is of high interest, and should not be locked regularly.

    As a side note, I regret having reverted the page even once, so I am no longer a neutral party. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jennavecia just did it for 72 hrs. DGG (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Even where compromises are "accepted" this page attracts some interesting new edits, and trying to keep it to a "normal" article is difficult indeed. Collect (talk) 01
    01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Magog, and also regret having edited the page to where it is no longer appropriate for me to lock it. This article brought out the worst in some great editors; I hate to say Collect above is one of them. I really hope that interest in this dies down. Tan | 39 02:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Did Jguk die in vain?

    Looking at this edit and others by the same account, I wonder how this squares with the guideline at WP:DATE:

    In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee stated that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason.

    When questioned on the talk page, the user states:

    That means if it is an article which has ties to a non-English speaking country, either format is acceptable, and month-day-year is just fine. Since I'm from America, that's how I edit..

    This seems to be one user wrongly interpreting guidelines as overruling ArbCom to remove international format dates from international articles. --Pete (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't realize that the policy enunciated in WP:ERA applied beyond the year format. I hadn't caught an ArbCom ruling from three years ago. Won't happen again.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The warning is featured prominently at the very beginning of WP:DATE. "Won't happen again" is not good enough. "Will go back and fix my mistakes" is more like it. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sfan00 IMG

    Several times over many months I have noticed this user removing references based on his own "fringe" interpretation of copyright law, for instance 18 June 2008, 5 August 2008, 15 November 2008. From the comments at User talk:Sfan00 IMG and his replies, it's pretty clear that he doesn't get it. I think we may need to "topic-ban" Sfan00 IMG from removing reference and external links. Can people please comment on whether this is desirable and feasible? Thank you. --NE2 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. I would support that. Though it *may* be possible to block him already if he does anymore edits like the ones he has been doing... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Goodness, this board being useful? How could that be possible?) Strongly support topic ban or perhaps even a regular ban. Copyright paranoia in its worst, in what looks like an extreme misunderstanding of either the law or the word "derivative." The edits are borderline (if not past the line) disruptive and need to stop immediately. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK So since when is removing in good faith links that were potentialy questionable a WP:ANI matter?

    In many cases they were reviewd rather qucilay when there were objections. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the B word is constructive here, Rschen. Just letting any closing admins know, Sfan00 IMG is a legit sock of User:ShakespeareFan00. — neuro(talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a minor note, it'd be nice if we could avoid requesting "backup" from IRC. It's bad form to canvass for support. To nobody in particular. :) Kylu (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fru23 again

    Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Freshly off block for edit warring, the user has resumed edit warring on the same article that got him blocked the first time: [92] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, I am removing unsourced material from bios, I must be evil.

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Shawn_Hornbeck

    There are no sources. The daily times mentions nothing on the topic and the other is one sentence. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=3059 I removed it per BOLP but I was revert twice. If this I allowed to stay up as it is i have lost hope in wikipedia. I guess you are not supposed to check sources to make sure they are accurate.

    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore_controversies#Dave_Kopel The only source given is an editorial by the national review, Again I stated the reason for its removal and was reverted. If you are going to allow editorials from random newspapers and biased web sites to be "reliable sources", wikipedia bios will soon be transformed into tabloids. I hope you see it my way Fru23 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What I see is that you don't like the answers you've gotten on the article talk page, and thus you resort to the futility of edit warring. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can not comprehend why this is allowed up, THE SOURCES ARE CRAP! Fru23 (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We had this guy on IRC earlier, it was generally agreed that he needs to calm down and look at policy. He referenced WP:BOLP at one point... I will happily send the logs to any administrator who I believe would benefit in seeing them. That said, naturally IRC logs are not evidence per sé - but yes, any admin who thinks they need them, email me. — neuro(talk) 02:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding and Attempted Outing of Identity

    I wish to make a serious complaint about the behaviour of User:Mitsube in relation to my contributions to Wikipedia. Ever since I signed up a few months ago, User:Mitsube has been pursuing me around Wikipedia and causing constant irritation. First, he leapt on my article, 'Purity in Buddhism', and then pretended that he knew what my real-life identity was, wrongheadedly and maliciously proclaiming the name of 'Tony Page' to the Wikipedia-reading world. He subsequently deleted, tagged or constantly quibbled with accurate, sourced and fairly summarised material that I had added (he/she likes to claim that I am putting forward my 'personal interpretration', whenever something is stated that he/she does not like). Another user, 'Anam Gumnam', noted this behaviour and said that Mitsube is clearly engaged in some kind of vendetta against me. I agree. Why User:Mitsube should do this, I do not know, as I have no knowledge of who Mitsube is and I have never deleted or interfered with his/her contributions. But nearly everything I write is 'policed' by User:Mitsube and no good faith is assumed on his/her part. Just a couple of days ago, after not contributing to Wiki for some weeks, I added a section to the Introduction of the "Dzogchen" article (I intended to add a supporting paragraph the next day to the body of the text, which I did). This is an article that User:Mitsube had taken no active interest in for nearly 4 months. But within a matter of hours, User-Mitsube had popped up and moved the material (at first I thought he had deleted it, as is his wont), and was nit-picking over a sentence of mine, which does in fact accurately reflect the ideas contained in the book from which I quoted. Now he seems to have deleted a section entitled 'Boundless Wholeness' which I added to the "Dzogchen' article. Almost always and all the time, if I make a major contribution to Buddhism-related articles on Wikipedia, User:Mitsube will find some fault or other, or tend even to delete material without discussing it first with the writer or with other editors. He/she is clearly following me around Wikipedia and harassing me. So, I accuse User:Mitsube of:

    1) Attempted Outing

    2) Wikihounding

    I hope very much that the Administrators will severely reprimand User:Mitube and limit the extent to which he or she is allowed to edit. Sincerely - Suddha (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, this is the line for vehicle registration renewal. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Bcordingley

    Bcordingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adds spam links to articles. Also User talk:Bcordingley is blatant advertising for a website. Dr.K. (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He also spams user pages with the same advertising. Dr.K. (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have stopped after you posted the warning to his talk page. --GraemeL (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's fine then. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive sockpuppet master causing serious problem

    User:ColourWolf has, since last year, created over 50 sock accounts to spread lies and vandalism here on Wikipedia, and he has vowed to vandalize on even a grander scale. Something needs to be done to deal with this, such as talking to the ISPs from the country which this guy comes from (Singapore, which shouldn't be a problem, as there are only 2-3 ISPs there), or even consider something more drastic, such as *ahem* law enforcement. (I know that falls afoul of WP:LEGAL, but I am simply throwing this out here). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=252082995"