Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive378

Need someone to delete/clean up an AFD naming - easy admin work

 Fixed Can someone move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (2nd nomination) for me, so that the naming/list on the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination) doesn't show an extra AFD? Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oo! Oo! Pick me! I like the easy stuff! Consider it done (because it is). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you solve the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia next? :) Lawrence § t/e 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, that broke a number of links and transclusions...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I only found one broken link, and have since fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. As to the more important question posed by Mr. Cohen. Er, I don't know. The Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalisim, if I'm being honest, are unfixable. Go buy a house, though, the market is friggin fantastic if you're looking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

<me blinks in puzzlement> So Keeper's fixes to the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia didn't break a number of links & transclusions? Glad to know fixing those won't break any articles. -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent

Per this message on Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) talk page, it appears that outside users are being recruited to disrupt the AFD discussion referenced above. Their method appears to be blanking the talk pages of users who !vote delete. In addition, they are creating multiple copies of the article in question, mostly with extra periods. See Mi.ke L. Vin.cent‎, Mi.k e L. Vin.ce nt, and Mi.k e L. Vin.c.e n.t, all of which were copy-pasted. I and a couple of other users have tagged them as implausible redirects for speedy deletion, but I see this as disruptive meatpuppetry. Concerned users appear to be:

• Gregg Potts (talk · contribs)
• Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs)
• Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs)
• Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs)

Since there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing, I wouldn't be surprised if more show up. Help please? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps protect the AfD page, as Docg did on the Iseman AfD? Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been some other socks too:

• Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs)
• Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs)
• Wasfou514 (talk · contribs)

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The following users:

1. Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been indefblocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps someone could do a checkuser on the others. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - add the following as socks of the same editor:

1. Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also, the main troublesome IPs have been blocked ACB, so that should help - Alison ^❤ 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've retagged these. Am I understanding correctly that all of these accounts are related, including Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) and those listed at the top of the thread? MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to clarify here that Gregg Potts (talk) is  Unrelated here to the other accounts - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shite. Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue. My bad; I misread. I've offered a very strong apology to Gregg Potts (talk · contribs), whom Alison has unblocked. I'll fix the tags up to point to the actual sockmaster. Man, I feel awful about that. Thanks for the quick response and for clearing up my confusion, Alison. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasfou514 (talk · contribs) is also claiming to be unrelated - did I screw up there by blocking as well? MastCell ^Talk 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - I'm afraid so :( Wasfou514 was never implicated as being one of the socks. I'll unblock now - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

74.225.169.82

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.225.169.82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.225.169.82

I saw this user posted at AIV and someone had already posted a note that it was an AGF edit rather than vandalism, however a few other editors dogpiled the anon and he ended up in a 3RR situation. I realize he broke 3RR, but should the other editors have dogpiled him accusing him of vandalism when they appear to be attempting to simply add information that the "senior" editors don't want in the article? Perhaps asking him to come to the talk page would have been a better idea? Just because an established editor decides someone is a sock or a vandal without proof/checkuser it seems that newbies are getting trashed and that makes WP a bad place to hang out. Can someone uninvolved take a look? [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Thanks Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While Id like to assume good faith here, you may want to take a look at the conversation going on right up here regarding this sockpuppeter and the IP range his is using, which is very close to this IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute as to whether to list Epcot Center as being in the City (Orlando, FL) or County (Orange County, FL). I'm unsure as to actual Wikipedia policy on locations (couldn't they compromise and list both?) but it looks like a really silly debate that both sides just want to blow out of proportion. And as a content dispute, I'm 100% sure this doesn't qualify as "vandalism."

As a side note, I agree that accusations of "sockpuppetry" and "vandalism" are thrown around far too often in what are simply content disputes, and blocks based on the accusations made too often with a very itchy trigger finger. M1rth (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks were made because of a WP:3RR vio. and for evading said block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coolies, I'm wrong, thanks for the info! Perhaps there should be more info on the block/users page? As it stands it looks like a bunch of editors dogpiled him because they didn't like his edits and then he got blocked because "senior" editors didn't like his edits. Look at it as a noob...there are a lot of complaints about WP being "run" as the playground of just a few editors and admins, if we aren't careful to fully document stuff like this, we give those people confirmation of their already biased attitude. I'm not horribly new, and I couldn't find the info that showed that this was anything more than a playground argument, enough so that I felt I should bring it here to find out whats up. Legotech·(t)·(c) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Their edit warring was pretty obvious, but I had left a note on the respective talk page, and protected Epcot. The IP address has since migrated to another IP. seicer | talk | contribs 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The same editor is being discussed elsewhere on this page. I think it's inaccurate to dismiss this as a content dispute. The editor is hostile, abusive and rejects all appeals to consensus, policy and procedure. A close read of his or her edits from at least 15 different accounts or IP addresses shows an immediate pattern of personal attacks ("idiots" being the most frequent insult) and a refusal to abide by consensus. This is not someone acting in good faith (example, example, example, etc.). &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I'm butting in somewhere I shouldn't, but I've done a little research and found that this appears to be a pattern for this user. It seems like whenever a change he makes gets reverted, he gets personal, as shown here and here. To add gravity to the point, these are for an article completely unrelated to the current situation. I've attempted to start a discussion on consensus, only to be personally attacked. Other users have had the same experience. Nobody has disputed the content the editor is attempting to add, only that it goes against the consensus that has been established, with no explanation or attempt at a dialogue to explain them, or why consensus should change to support the edits. Thank you for your time. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some background on the situation, for those who are merely looking at it from the outside. (and I apologize in advance for not providing all links here; they have been posted in various talk pages already, such as on the Disney's Hollywood Studios talk page). Back in 2007 the decision was made by consensus that the category "visitor attractions in orlando, florida" would be used to encompass the greater orlando area. In fact, the "visitor attractions in greater orlando" category was merged into it and then deleted. Last week, a user decided that the "orlando, florida" portion of the category meant that it was only applicable to the physical city limits of Orlando, rather than the general area that the category has come to represent. An attempt to discuss the matter took place on the DHStudios talk page, but it was ignored and those involved were told that we were idiots because we couldn't read a map. We asked for previous policy and examples (as that was what was being quoted to us) and none were provided. This user then proceeded to change all the Disney-related articles (both parks and individual ride articles) to say that those parks were in the city of Bay Lake and/or Orange County florida. (In reality, WDW covers two counties, and Bay Lake is not the parks' official mailing address or city of residence). The user became uncivil and posted rude comments in edit summaries and on people's talk pages, earning them a temp block... and that's when the sockpuppets began. We got admins involved to help monitor/maintain the situation, and this is where we are a week later. Today, when the category this editor created to replace the "attractions in orlando, florida" category he didn't like was officially deleted per CFD, the category was recreated and the edits and reverts started anew. So in a nutshell, aside from all the article edits and reverts, we also have an editor that is creating new categories, having those categories deleted per CFD, and then recreating them after consensus was already reached. It's obviously more than just a little content dispute, as all the regular editors are trying to do is maintain the article content -- we've even gone so far as to remove location information that shouldn't have existed in specific articles at all so there shouldn't be a reason to say the info is right or wrong, only to have the too-detailed and some say incorrect location info put back in. All in all, it's been a fun few days, but admins have been involved (on and off) all along the way so it's not been entirely the non-admin editors doing the work. SpikeJones (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for the history...I'm desperately trying to learn my way around here and appreciate being "read into" the history of this sock drawer. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble with my post here. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be at it again. To make matters worse, when asked politely to discuss, he blanks his page and replaces it, as shown here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a royal mess. Until someone figures out a way to block this individual, I'll continue to revert changes as needed. I guess I can add a 30-60 day protection on these articles in the hopes that things will calm down. I am not following these discussions, so if you need to clue me in drop a link on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not like we haven't tried, as indicated here. He just blanks the page and ignores the requests for an explanation or a discussion. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy,I'm on the job as well....ick. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another question...will I be breaking 3RR if I'm fixing this stuffs? Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of 3RR says no, because you are reverting edits created by an account being used to bypass a block on another account (i.e., a sock puppet). Of course, the admins and higher-ups have final say. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles have been page protected against IP addresses and new user accounts for one month. If there is one that is experiencing heavy IP vandalism or is protected for 3 days (I reset my original 3 day protection to 1 month to coincide with other protections), let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The contribution pages of the socks point mainly to the Walt Disney World and SeaWorld articles, even the individual attraction pages. I know that's a lot of pages to be protected. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All relevent pages protected

Also see the related thread above. I hate to have had to do this, but it look slike we have had to protect all of the various orlando-related articles. Much thanks to Seicer and Vegaswikian, who apparently reached the same conclusion as I did at around the same time, as it looks like we kept running into each other. Anyways, since blocks were UTTERLY ineffecitive at stopping this person, who is a banned user using a drifting IP address to edit agains consensus see [4]), I think we had no other choice but to protect the whole lot of pages. Not sure what else to do. If any unprotected pages pop up on anyone's radar, let us know here, or on my talk page, and we'll add them to the list. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin solution, but maybe the Orlando participants should define a template which emits at least the desired category. Documentation of the template would explain when it is to be used (city or greater Orlando). Other editors would then have a chance to find that info. Orlando-editors might find some other info for an Orlando template, such as links to City and County articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, but Miamiboyzinhere is no longer blocked, he may go back and vandalise the articles that are under protection from the IP addresses that vandalised them. Momusufan (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Soccermeko and Infostorm

Despite numerous attempts to resolve editing conflicts on the Nicole Wray page and a couple of subpages including Nicole Wray discography and Template:Nicole Wray which have included page protection, the suspected sockpuppets User:Soccermeko (also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko) and User:Infostorm continue to repeatedly add misinformation to all of the pages. Please can someone look into this. Since Soccermeko has received a warning, all edits have been made on the other account. Cloudz679 (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty blatant to me. Certainly quacks like a WP:DUCK as far as I'm concerned. User:Infostorm indef blocked as a sock. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

Individual has been Stalking me as well as forum shopping [5] . Has been warned many times for personal attacks and uncivil behavior reported to AIV [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Editing while blocked [11] Uconnstud (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:St. John's University (New York City) for the truth. User is a vandal, and is attempting to block people instead of editing contructively.- --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been edit warring, and stalking. He follows me around in articles and tells people to act against my constructive edits. 3rr violation [12] Uconnstud (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is trying to use Wiki system to get his way when all else fails. He is reverting a semi-protected article, and causing significant content loss. He is a vandal, and needs to be stopped. All it takes is a quick comparision of the articles to realize his intentions, and he refuses to engage in meaningful disucssion on the talk page. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Has a history of edit warring and not working with others.

06:43, 8 August 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Abusive sockpuppetry to edit war) 15:14, 9 June 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: on St. John's University (New York City), again) 11:59, 8 June 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: on St. John's University (New York City)) Uconnstud (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All these blocks are a result of HIM, before I realized he was doing things exactly like this. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the result of you acting poorly and not being an asset to wikipedia. Please stop edit warring. Uconnstud (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If attempting to constructively edit an article with meaningful content while trying to prevent vandals from destroying and misrepresenting facts makes me a bad asset, then I'm guilty. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Both parties are working with J.delanoy (talk · contribs), who is providing a third opinion at TiconderogaCCB's request. I have cautioned both parties that any further reversion or shenanigans will be grounds for a block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NYRofBooks BEANS

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#New_York_Review_of_Books_article_on_Wikipedia points at an article about Wikipedia which gives examples of vandalism on specific articles. Here's a list of named beans; some are redlinks and should be until someone writes some good stuff. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Diogenes of Sinope
• turnip
• Crazy Eddie
• Bagoas
• quadratic formula
• Bristol Beaufighter
• squeegee
• Sanford B. Dole
• Pierre Varignon
• Diogenes
• aging
• Colletotrichum trichellum
• aardvark
• bedbugs
• elephant
• Pop-Tarts
• James Bryant Conant
• Archimedes
• culture jamming
• David Pogue

• Larry Sanger
• Jimmy Wales
• John Broughton
• Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
• bovine somatotropin
• Sleepless in Seattle
• hydraulic fluid
• cobbler
• periodization
• Daily Planet
• Taekwang Industry
• Vladimir Narbut
• Sara Mednick
• Pyro Boy
• Arifs
• Card Football
• Paul Karason
• Jim Cara
• Owen King

• Whitley Neill Gin
• Michelle Leonard
• Henry Fonda
• Twelve Angry Men
• Isles of Shoals
• PartiallyClips
• Pokemon
• Mzoli's
• Cape Town, South Africa

Redlinks at time of this message:

• Richard Denner
• Jitterbug telephone
• Plamen Ognianov Kamenov
• Empress Alamonda
• Whirled News Tonight
• Ragnarok Wisdom
• Wikimorgue
• Deletopedia

these are articles mentioned there--most of them in other contexts than as being vandalized. Nonetheless, they all would bear watching now. DGG (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a shared watchlist at Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Random832/watchlist/NYTimes. —Random832 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, The New York Review of Books has nothing to do with the New York Times -- except that they are both published in the same city. One is a high-brow, literary publication, the other is a newspaper. I suggest this mistake be corrected quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here. Wouldn't want to confuse any NY Times reporters. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal information as punishment, sockpuppeting, POV pushing, edit warring, single purpose attack accounts, etc.

Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets for habitual edit warring and per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta).

This user was previously blocked 1 in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and for related 3RR process disruption; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit histories of socks for details. Commonality of edit history and talk page rhetoric is blatantly apparent. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between.

User engages in exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 71.168.80.203 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 71.181.68.181 5.

Suspected sockpuppets

NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.68.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.62.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
47.234.0.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(Note: User has been simultaneously reported on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) for sockpuppetry.

Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

REPOST: RYNORT returns

I am re-posting this request for assistance, since it was overlooked previously with no responses. If it is deficient in any way, please let me know how to improve it.

A while back User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was indefinitely banned for multiple incidents of massive incivility, personal attacks, and generally reprehensible behavior. A coordinated effort came from 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was also banned by several admins for the same sorts of behavior. I filed this ANI report back in January regarding some malice from RYNORT, and in this earlier ANI report I pretty much laid out the idiosyncratic behavior that linked the two. This IP has been trolling and making personal attacks, most recently on my talk page. RFCU may be appropriate, but based on the IP's own gross incivility I think the case is made for blocking the IP entirely. Thanks for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month (same duration as previous block) as an obvious IP sock of RYNORT, used to continue same disruptive behavior. Edits and block log indicate this is a fairly static IP, and there should be little to no collateral damage. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Advice requested

Background: User:Harlempanther187 repeatedly created the article Tony Accardo Jr, which stated nothing other than birthdates, parentage, and that the person was a member of the Chicago Outfit. No sources. I repeatedly deleted per WP:BLP, and gave the appropriate warnings and advice. The author got mad, started vandalizing, and redirected his talk page to Fuck NawlinWiki, so I eventually blocked him.

Today, I got this comment on my talk page from User:192.203.136.247, an anon IP registered to DuPage College. Its previous edit was to add Tony Accardo Jr to the Chicago Outfit article. The message purports to be from a law firm in Chicago that represents Tony Accardo Jr, and demands that I contact them (giving an email address and a phone number). I blocked the IP for 55 hours for legal threats, and posted an explanation to the IP's talk page (including pointing out that all they need to do to reinstate the article is write one that complies with WP:BLP). User:Zsero wrote and said that s/he didn't think it was a legal threat and that the block was improper. I think that the IP is, in fact, User:Harlempanther187, making a crude attempt to intimidate me. But I would appreciate some second opinions. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would just ignore it. If its a threat, its pointless. You could try an RFCU/IP, if course, but is it worth the effort? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked ABA and Illinois directories of lawyers, none by that name who are admitted to practice. Phone number resolves to an address in Illinois, but with a different name than either the corporate or individual name in the diff. And google maps doesn't reveal a law office by that name in the vicinity of the address the number links to. And when was the last time you saw a real lawyer with that style of email address. I wouldn't contact it or engage them in on-wiki conversation. If their serious (and I doubt they are), they'll contact Mike Godwin at the Foundation. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a phone call or an e-mail to DuPage's abuse address is in order? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't and I'd tell Nawlin not to either, but maybe someone whose more involved with foundation stuff (read: Comm Committee/Meta) would want to. I'm any event, I'd agree it was a good NLT block. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it a good block? It's not a legal threat at all, or a threat of any kind. It doesn't matter who posted it or why, it's not grounds for a block. -- Zsero (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero. It wasn't a threat, legal or otherwise. --Kbdank71 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there was not an explicit threat... why else would a lawyer seek an editor's real name, except for legal proceedings? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A lawyer contacts you on wiki, saying they represent someone, someone whose topic you've in some way been involved in editing, and they wish to get in touch with you off-wiki for your real identity. What WP:AGF reason could they have for doing so? MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ultra and Mbisanz. "Legal" is subjective. If a "lawyer" asks for my real name, or Nawlines, or any Wikipedian, I can see how that can easily be construed as a threat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. If a threat comes in, then block. Otherwise, it's a request, which anyone can make. Just because a person is a lawyer doesn't mean squat. Unless we're now pre-emptively blocking. --Kbdank71 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Will you start paying me 50% of your income, or should I get someone to break your kneecap?" No, not a threat, just a harmless question... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If the request ended with "...or I'll sue you", then block. But if you just asked me "Will you start paying me 50% of your income?", my answer is no. --Kbdank71 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to missed the entire point of WP:NLT in favor of bureaucratic waffling: the intent is to allow intimidation-free editing, and this was clearly a fairly crude attempt to intimidate. As for the example given, threatening physical violence is okay, but threatening legal action isn't? You need to recalibrate your reality meter. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Are we overlooking the fact that whomever purports to represent the law offices has (a) a pretty awful grasp of grammar, and (b) a web-based email address? Leaving aside whether or not the block was right, given that the IP is registered to a college, isn't it more likely to be a hoax? _GB^T/C 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, much more likely. If we knew that for sure, then even an actual threat would not be blockable as such. But even if we were to take her at her word that she is a lawyer, the fact remains that she did not make a threat. She simply asked someone to contact her, as is her perfect right (just as that person has the perfect right to ignore it) -- Zsero (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

...s/he didn't think it was a legal threat and that the block was improper. I think that the IP is, in fact, User:Harlempanther187, making a crude attempt to intimidate me ← Are you aware of any incident involving a "legal threat" that was anything other than a crude attempt to intimidate another user? — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Arisedrink

I believe the user to be a sockpuppet. There was an edit war the other day on Maddox (writer) and I got 3 different vandals (and possible suspects of each other) banned at WP:AN/3. Now Arisedrink is making the same edits as those vandals as you can see here. Even if the user is not a sockpuppet I think a block or ban is in order. That user has only existed for about a week andf they've only edited the Maddox page. The user has also blanked their talk page numerous times after being warned again and again to stop vandalizing the page and citing rules which do not fit. I'm almost 100% sure it's a sockpuppet of one of those vandals, however, at the very least, it's a vandal and should be blocked. Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't be sure, report the user for WP:3RR. Banning wouldn't be the right course of action - and a temp block would come from the report. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, best thing to do is report to WP:3RR like said above. Tiptoety ^talk 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, (and this is just an aside - not assuming anything), try and avoid referring to them as sockpuppets unless you have near incontrovertible evidence or strong suspicions - enough to open a sockpuppet case. In other words, don't tag their user/talk pages as suspected sockpuppets. Not saying you would, but just wanted to mention this. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Za'atar

There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not the article Za'atar should retain referenced information concerning Israel. A few days prior an edit war broke out over similar Israel/Jewish references in the article Hummus and since that died down, its moved over to Za'atar. I'm not real sure how to proceed on this, I did leave a notice on one of the editor's TALK pages as well as a pose the question asking for input on Za'atar's TALK page. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Boomgaylove II

Note: the first AN/I incident may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#User:boomgaylove) - Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we kindly get some administrative help on this? There are edit wars brewing on the AfD discussions, articles, etc. I'm in a tough spot of having to choose between attempting to keep order at the risk of edit warring with possibly legitimate Wikipedians, and letting the articles devolve because I don't want to get involved. This may all clear up once we run a checkuser on some of the suspicious-looking editors who have jumped in, so I think everything would benefit from a cool-down. Some neutral, experienced help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, do help! I am not "making" claims of drug dealing or inserting any derogatory material. The article mentioned the rap artist's drug-dealing (he was convicted of it and placed on probation as a 17-year-old) before I ever came to this, and I did so only because of the abusive sock puppet issue. The sockpuppets have been gaming this issue heavily. The information does not seem to be harmful because he apparently freely admits to it, and a feature article about him in a local newspaper mentions it. The news article and the artist's own words are the sources, and the attempt to remove the fact and the citations, as well as all references positive and negative to the rapper himself, were part of the sock attack. Since the sources are reliable and the mention relevant and harmless, there is no obvious BLP violation. I have no stake here, but I do not want to let sockpuppets dictate article content or goad people into starting edit wars. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB for the interview. The newspaper source is obvious from the article. Try reading it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved Wikidemo's edit from the archive to this thread for ease of use. --jonny-mt 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppetry report

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. In addition to the obvious sockpuppets / evasion of block, a number of IP and recently-registered users have recently flocked to the issues, nominated for deletion the two (now five) articles that the now-blocked editor was trying to gut, parroted the same tactics and language. There are several users who are not clear sockpuppets but may be, could be meatpuppets (the user has admitted to meatpuppetry as well), or might just be innocent editors who wandered in. I'm not sure what to do next - a checkuser?

Also, I'm wondering if we can speedy close or otherwise suspend the AfDs pending a resolution of the sockpuppet issue. I won't argue the articles' notability here (obviously I think they are or I wouldn't be here), but it's an undue waste of time dealing with edit wars, AfDs, and other wikigaming in the middle of trying to figure out who is a sockpuppet. If the articles are deletable they can wait a couple weeks until we've gotten rid of the trolls, and reasonable editors can have an honest content discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are legitimate AfD concerns which are evident by the majority opinions on the AfD of J Stalin. Just because some user was blocked for contentious editing does not mean that any editor which coincidentally has a similar stance on the article's notability its a sock puppet. Also not a reason to indefinatly stop AfD's which you are biasly in favor or not occurring, while vindictively adding arbitrary and baseless warnings talk pages.Icamepica (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like it will be deleted so the question is moot, and I see no point responding to the random potshots of an accused sockpuppet. I don't want to get into AfD procedure because, assuming this is boomgaylove, he/she has nominated at least six articles for deletion in five days, including this one three times using three different accounts, and should not be taught the ins and outs of how AfD relates to sockpuppetry.Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - I am commenting out some of the residue of user:Icamepica's trolling from yesterday. As per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove we have uncovered a dozen or more sockpuppets (including Icamepica), some clearly linked to boomgaylove and some not yet. I'm adding this comment in part in case Icamepica causes trouble again when his/her block expires in a few hours and if the account has not (yet) been indefinitely blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more attacks

And in the midst of all this, yet another user with civility issues, User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous is making personal attacks. He's attacked me before in opposing my attempts to deal with the swarm of sockpuppets / trolls. See this edit[13], which he has made three times and I've deleted twice as a personal attack on me. My statements are correct, actually, and for that he/she calls me "ignorant" and says my edits are a demonstration of an "encyclopedia-that-any-idiot-can-edit." Rather than reverting him a third time I'm inviting him to remove his (or her) comments. Would someone mind taking a look to see if this is an NPA violation and if so, what we can do? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some additional material - He's been edit warring in support of the sock puppets and making personal attacks on this article elsewhere in the past two days. here he calls me "irrational" for adding a second source, and deleted it along with sourced content, during the article's WP:AfD process. here he's doing the same thing a few days earlier. From the talk page this editor has a pattern of civility problems, and showing up in the midst of the bizarre sockpuppet swarm raises concerns (although the majority of the account's overall edit history does seem productive and in good faith). Anyway, I don't want to let stand an attack that I'm "ignorant" and an "idiot" for saying something that is, actually, true. Wikidemo (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has not removed the attacks. They really should not stay as a fixture on the article talk page, nor do I think it's good to leave them up while the article is under a sockpuppet AfD effort. I haven't gotten any guidance here and the user hasn't responded to my request for removal. I'm also hesitant to go to a different forum with this because I've tried to consolidate it all here after the sockpuppets went forum shopping and canvassing. So unless anyone has any other suggestion I'm going to just archive the incivilities. The editor has threatened to go past 3RR, claiming my removing his attacks are "vandalism", so please be alert in case this continues. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I'd just like to point out that whatever the merits, or lack thereof, in Wikidemo's arguments above, that he (or she) has tried to, basically, censor the discussion on the Cypress Village page, most recently by a rather transparent move of "archiving" a short discussion with the clear intention of getting it out of sight. I don't mind the ongoing back-and-forth here, but I do object to such unilateral attempts to remove what this user apparently sees as embarassing material. Discuss the issues on their merits, why don't you? As I said there, for my part, I'd like to get back to a substantive discussion of the topic, in this case, neighborhoods in West Oakland. ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing a personal attack (calling me an "idiot" and "ignorant") is not censorship. I proposed here exactly what I was going to do if the editor did not remove the uncivil comments, and I did it. Of course it is transparent, deliberately so. I archived the thread with the insults because there is no more conversation to be had when one of the two parties is calling the other an idiot, and that is the best way to preserve it without altering it. The editor said he "stands by" his comments (notably, that I am an idiot and ignorant), and has now violated WP:3RR with this edit[14] by inserting those invectives for a fourth time. Can someone please help? Is this the wrong place - should I take it to the 3RR notice board? Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I can block both of you for violating WP:3RR, or I can conclude that both archiving is different than removing completely and unarchiving is also different from restoring after a removal. I choose the latter. Stop edit warring, both of you, or I'll change my mind and go with option 1. Yes, his comments are incivil, no they don't reach my standard for administrative action. GRBerry 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scolding both of us is not helpful. The other editor has violated 3RR, I have not. The other editor is misbehaving by spewing insults; I am not. I am trying to deal with a serious abusive sockpuppet problem here; the other editor has been supporting the sockpuppets. I am not a disruptive editor. I have been asking again and again for guidance and help, and gotten none. Is that the official word from administrators around here, that I get blocked? I have zero risk of future disruptive editing - I have asked for administrative blessing every step of the way and gotten no opposition or guidance of any sort. If that's the thanks I get for helping with the encyclopedia, go ahead and block me. Wikidemo (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I should note that the two of us are talking on our talk pages and I don't expect any more trouble for now. I've asked if he/she would mind putting an archive box around the part of the discussion that just concerns the two of us, so that it does not distract from the larger ongoing sockpuppet matter.Wikidemo (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a victim of both of these users, WikiDemo's McArthy-in-scope sockpuppet paranoia and ILike2BeAnonymous' colorful borderlining and incivility may I suggest all parties involved take a breather?Cholga^talK! 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there is considerable evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove pointing to the fact that Cholga is Icamepica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for disruption in this very discussion. While I rather agree with your suggestion that a breather might be in order, I object to your misrepresentation of the situation in order to take a dig at both editors involved. --jonny-mt 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The results of the checkuser are here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the confirmed sockpuppet accounts. This appears to be a co-ordinated and long-term attempt to establish multiple accounts which have been involved in a variety of dubious activities. Gwernol 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review: Eleemosynary

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs). This request is procedural since the block ends fairly shortly, but since he intends to post a complaint against me here when it ends (by which point I'll be asleep and unable to respond), I believe I should get my word in before I go.

3RR violation

Eleemosynary is claiming that I "admin abuse"-d him by blocking him for WP:3RR violation on Matt Sanchez. First of all, please note that the article is subject to an article probation, and all of the article's consistent editors, including Eleemosynary, are aware of this. My block message was as follows: You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Matt Sanchez. Your reverts were as follows: [15], [16], [17], [18]. You were warned of your pending 3RR violation here and referred to it as "officiousness", and you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 4 times before for it. Continual disruptive editing will not be tolerated.

Eleemosynary contends that his edits were not 4 reverts, which even if it were correct is irrelevant because the 3 revert rule does not entitle users to revert 3 times per day. From the policy: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.. However, his edits were indeed 4 reverts. A revert, per the policy, "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content..."

His first revert, [19] was a removal of this edit made on the 21st. His second revert again removed the text "writer". His third revert removed the text "writer" from a different place in the article. Eleemosynary contends that this is not a revert, however, clearly states A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time so in fact it is. Revert 4 is clear.

Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation.

tendentious editing

As I have shown above, there were 4 reverts within 24 hours, a violation of the 3RR. Even were there not to have been, Eleemosynary was clearly edit warring on the article. Just a few days before that, he had edit warred over the bad faith removal of images of Matt Sanchez, justifying his removal of a freely licensed picture under the assumption of bad faith that "Matt Sanchez had lied before about the ownership of pictures, he must have lied about this one too."

You may note from Eleemosynary's extensive block log that he has been blocked 7 times for violating the 3RR, or edit warring. He's also been blocked for legal threats, and blocked twice for violating WP:OFFICE. Eleemosynary should know better than to edit war on an article, but even after being blocked, he insists that he was right, the blocking admin was wrong, and this is harassment against him, and that I have a grudge against him (more on that later).

Furthermore, given the article probation that affected the page (and he was well aware of such probation) he should have been on notice not to edit tendentiously on the article. Therefore even if his block was not for 3RR violations, it would have been appropriate for disruptive editing.

allegations that I have harassed him

Until this block, I have not dealt with Eleemosynary in months. I've blocked him once before, in August 2007 if memory serves right, for another 3RR violation. Just a week later, some of you may remember, was User:Crockspot's RFA. I don't remember the exact details, but it was disrupted by allegations that he was a racist, showed some off wiki forum posts of an off-wiki user with the same name saying racist things. At that time, a Digg user named Eleemosynary made a digg post about Crockspots RFA to try and disrupt it. It naturally failed. Our User:Eleemosynary was just coming off of his block from me. I can't remember exactly what it was for, but the block log says "multiple 3RR vios". He was blocked for a month by Isotope, which was later overturned by Theresa Knott. Eleemosynary here (who is a vocal opponent of Crockspots) maintains his innocence that he is not the Eleemosynary from Digg. I did not and still do not believe this, and at the time I wrote a post on my blog about it. Eleemosynary believes this to be my "harassment" of him. It should be very clear, however, after reading it that it is nothing of the sort.

His responses to this latest block are snarky, claiming that I have a grudge against him, and that I have harassed him and continue to harass him. This conveniently ignores that I have had no contact in months with him, and that a 16-entry long block log would imply that perhaps he is the one doing the harassing. As evidence of his hostile behavior, please see these diffs: "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace" (referring to Matt Sanchez...yes there's evidence that he had good intentions for that article), [index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&diff=next&oldid=194538800 Well, this dishonesty isn't surprising, coming from "Swat."], (in that same diff accusing me of admin abuse, accusing me of lying, etc.) accusing me of editing on behalf of a banned editor, and again, and again, accusing me of working on behalf of a banned editor, harassment, and abusing my admin privileges, alleges that I've threatened him off wiki (!)(?), while maintaining that he has not been hostile at all, etc., alleges that I am interpreting policy "tortuously", which apparently means "deceitfully",

I've warned Eleemosynary that if he continues to make these allegations against me, I will block him for gross incivility, and that here is the appropriate place for him to bring any complaints he has against me. Since I expect to be asleep by the time his block expires, I wanted to post this now, before any facts get distorted. I believe that Eleemosynary should be article banned from Matt Sanchez, this is a remedy that any administrator can enforce since the page is already under article probation. I further would like to see this block endorsed, and possibly a community ban on Eleemosynary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

My recollection of the "Digg-post" and Crockspot's RfA: I remember the Crockspot nom, and when the Digg posting went down. At the time the only evidence that they were the same person was that it was the same name, and I think a trivial bit of location info, which I was able to find --on wiki. At the time of Eleemosynary's block, I sent an email to Administrator Isotope, inquiring as to whether there was any off-wiki evidence that he was privy to, but not available to the average wikipedian. He said there was none. It was my impression at the time that someone used his name to stir up extra drama here. And I believe that before he left (?) Crockspot and Eleemosynary were behaving civilly with each other. This lack of acrimony between the 2 of them led me to believe that, at some point, Crockspot decided that Eleemosynary did not make the Digg post either. R. Baley (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, R. Baley. Crockspot and I had a very contentious relationship here. But, after contacting me, and (as I recall) checking the timestamps of the posts in question, Crockspot dropped the issue of the fake off-site posting in my Wiki name. The only person who kept that canard going was Swatjester, here, on his off-site blog. (Swatjester could never get away with such an unfounded personal attack on Wikipedia.) I never even voted on Crockspot's RFA because 1) Swatjester blocked me during most of it, and 2) there was no way I could render a neutral judgment.

During that RFA, a number of admins came to my defense when talk of extending my block -- based, again, on no evidence whatsoever -- came up. However, Swatjester pressed for a significantly longer block, evidence be damned. Thankfully, cooler heads and good faith prevailed, and the block was quickly reversed. But I have to wonder if Swatjester's activities over the past few days are "spillover" from several months ago.

--Eleemosynary (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has demonstrated aggression on this page before and I remember warning him about incivility. I think Eleemosynary generally means well, but I think he has trouble controlling his temper. Ronnotel (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. However, I think the same could be said of Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to support that statement with evidence? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a troubling example. I would also point anyone interested to your recent fight with Guettarda, which resulted in your being blocked. But as this isn't an arbcomm case, I'm not going to compile an evidence list just yet. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A non-neutral summary from SwatJester?

It seems to me that the principal question in issue here is not the block itself, because SwatJester is not really asking for a review of the block. If SwatJester really wanted a block review, he wouldn't have waited until shortly before the block is to expire to ask. Further, the blcok has already been endorsed by John Vandenberg in a post on Eleemosynary's talk page. What is in issue here is SwatJester's actions, and I am concerned by the summary with SwatJester has offered. Some things I find worrying:

The block was not contested until shortly before it expired. As well, one endorse is hardly a general opinion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your action was questioned by a third editor 19 minutes after you notified Eleemosynary of the block. You chose not to post here until near the end of the block, when it seemed likely that Eleemosynary would post here at AN/I about your actions. I understand that you wanted to pre-empt - which is ok - but to present that pre-emption as a request for a review is dubious, in my view. And, for the record, I think Eleemosynary did technically breach 3RR, and I told him so when he dropped by my talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. SwatJester stated that Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation. It is interesting to note that no diff was provided. I wonder if that is because the warning was not that Eleemosynary had already violated 3RR, but that he was in danger of doing so. Now, the full discussion between Eleemosynary and Philippe is not all that constructive (it is preserved on Philippe's talk page), but it does make clear that Philippe believed that Eleemosynary's "next action may result in blocking". SwatJester is correct that Philippe's post was removed as "officiousness" from Eleemosynary's talk page, but I find SwatJester's mischaracterisation of the warning interesting.

   As I understand it, the warning was that he had already violated WP:3RR. Regardless, it's even more damning if he had been warned before violating 3RR. This is a semantical point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your understanding is in error - look at the diffs. "Please be sure to not revert the same content 3 times in a 24 hour period" is not a statement that 3RR had been breached. Nor is "<shrug> OK, but... well, you've been warned. The next action may result in blocking." Since a technical breach had already occurred, this would be semantics as you suggest, had you not relied on the warning in justifying the block. Your suggestion now that the warning was before the breach - which you must know to be false - makes your objectivity in this matter appear very doubtful. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. My concern is heightened by that fact that SwatJester knew that no action was taken after the warning. His block notification states that Eleemosynary was "warned of [his] pending 3RR violation". R. Baley pointed out shortly after that Eleemosynary had not edited after the warning, which Swatjester dismissed as irrelevant. SwatJester also noted that Eleemosynary "should have been using the talk page".

   I dismissed it as irrelevant because it was. Either Eleemosynary violated 3RR, was then warned, dismissed it as officiousness, and was subsequently blocked for it by me, or he came within 1 revert of violating the rule, was warned, continued, and then was blocked for it by me. Either way, it is a non-issue: he still violated the rule, undeniably. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   You know that the second option is not true, and trying to use it to bolster your position is questionable. As for the former, an objective response would be that the rule breach justifies a block. Nothing further needed saying - yet you keep bringing up a response to a warning which you state is irrelevant. I suggest you ask yourself "Why?". Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Looking at the talk page for the Matt Sanchez article, there is a thread on the issue, started by Eleemosynary here.

   Which he did not actively participate in until after the 4th revert, as was noted on his talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   He began the relevant thread - and you only noted anything about using the talk page in your dismissal as 'irrelevant' of R. Baley's concern that no edit was done after the warning. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

4. It takes at least two to make an edit war, and in this case the two parties are Eleemosynary and SatyrTN. As noted by SwatJester, the material on Matt Sanchez as a writer was added around 21 Feb, so either adding or removing it is part of edit warring. Here are the diffs, times, and edit summaries:

   Eleemosynary - 2323 26Feb - [20] - Changed "writer" to "blogger." He's not a writer in the traditionally accepted use of the term (as in, published by something other than a vanity press)

   SatyrTN - 0211 27Feb - [21] - The New Republic isn't a blog, therefore he's also a writer.

   SatyrTN - 0212 27Feb - [22] - writer

   Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [23] - He's never written for The New Republic. Beauchamp did. Check your facts before you revert.

   Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [24] - fix info box

   SatyrTN - 0436 27Feb - [25] - Sorry - I meant NY Post. Writer.

   Eleemosynary - 0440 27Feb - [26] - He wrote one, single guest column in the New York Post. That does not meet the threshold of a "writing" profession. Please take this to the talk page.

   SatyrTN - 0530 27Feb - [27] - per talk page, please reach consensus

   Note that the edit summaries show an on-going discussion - not in the correct forum - but nonetheless a discussion. If Eleemosynary deserved a block for vilating 3RR, surely SatyrTN violated the same rule. Note also that Eleemosynary initiated the talk page discussion at 0442 27Feb - 2 minutes after editing requesting to take the discussion to the talk page. SatyrTN performed a final revert 48 minutes later, in the same minute as joining the talk page discussion. In such a circumstance, wasn't that reversion provocative?

   Perhaps it is. But that's not relevant to the block of Eleemosynary. You are more than welcome to request a block of SatyrTN on WP:AN3 if you'd like. I'll even make the block myself, if another admin recommends it.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   The point is not whether there was a 3RR violation, it is that there were two of them - and you sanctioned only one editor. Again, is this consistent with the action of an objective, unbiased, and uninvolved admin? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Did SwatJester simply not notice the other side of the edit war? It seems unlikely in collecting diffs that he would have missed this fact. SwatJester commented immediately after SatyrTN in the talk page discussion, announcing the block. SatyrTN then thanked SwatJester for acting, and SwatJester didn't even mention SatyrTN's own 3RR violation. It is interesting that SatyrTN asked "Please let me know if I a) overstep or b) understep - I feel like I might be getting too close sometimes, and I feel like I'm too new with the mop to know what and when to clean up. SatyrTN has been editing the Sanchez article, debating sources (on user talk:Benjiboi, for example), and using his admin tools: [28] - a full protection that ended less than a day before this edit war was up and going. Even if SwatJester didn't notice SatyrTN's role in the edit war, shouldn't he have responded to SatyrTN's request with advice to not use admin tools when he has been editing the article? His actual response was an offer to help if needed.

   My response was an offer to help teach SatyrTN how to properly use the admin tools. I'm not convinced that SatyrTN has done anything wrong, and even if he has, he's certainly in better standing than Eleemosynary, who has been blocked multiple times for 3RR. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Are you serious? SatyrTN, an admin, has been actively editing the page, discussing changes on its talk page, and debating issues in other areas of WP; he fully protected the page and then become involved in edit warring within a day of it coming off protection and violated 3RR with 4 reverts in 3 h 19 min. And you are still not convinced he has done anything wrong? Your judgement is way off here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

6. In the above discussion SwatJester, cites as evidence of hostility that he removed a talk page comment from Matt Sanchez as "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace". Note that the comments from Matt are abusive - he has called Eleemosynary "a crappy editor", described him as "a total sham masquerading as a legitimate editor", "pathetic", and "a worthless whore", called him "a rabid idiot" contributing "nothing but supercillious commentary" and with "a gay-hate agenda", and stated that he will "probably commit suicide once they throw you off of the article. What else would you have to live for?". All of this is in the last four days. "[I]mpotent rantings of utter disgrace" doesn't seem that unreasonable a summary to me - although I should admit a bias in that Matt called me "unprofessional and childish" and a "fellow traveller" of "homosexuals and sodomites". SwatJester's evidence of Eleemosynary's hostility towards Matt Sanchez based on his decision to remove abuse from his own talk page is pretty thin.

   The comments by Matt are indeed abusive, and uncalled for. Matt Sanchez is a banned editor because of it. That does not give anyone permission to personally attack him. Do not feed the trolls. Civility does not cease to apply to interactions with banned editors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Eleemosynary's comment was in the edit summary on his talk page edit removing abuse from a banned editor. Which of the words Eleemosynary used are untrue? Given the blocking of IPs everytime he pops up, Matt is (metaphorically) impotent, his comments are rants, and they are utterly disgraceful. WP:CIVIL is absurdly overused on WP, and this is a good example - Eleemosynary was calling a spade a spade, and acting having been subjected to homophobia again. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

7. SwatJester notes that Eleemosynary accused him of editing on behalf of Matt (a banned editor) but interestingly chooses not to mention that Matt asked for help on SwatJester's talk page, nor that Matt asked for Eleemosynary's topic ban: [29] [30]. Since the Sanchez posts were removed by Benjiboi, I can't prove that SwatJester read them - but I can show he edited 10 minutes after Matt's second post was made to SwatJester's talk page, and that benjiboi didn't remove the comments until nearly two hours later. Isn't this a relevant fact given SwatJester is calling for a topic ban?

   It's relevant how that an IP has edited my talk page? One that, you may note, I did not respond to. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's relevant because that IP editor is Matt Sanchez. The diffs make that absolutely clear. The IP was blocked as a Matt Sanchez sock, and this is recorded on the Bluemarine ArbCom page. Matt asked you to topic ban Eleemosynary - he even did so civilly, which is unusaul for him. You are now asking on this thread for that topic ban. I find that highly relevant. I also find it interesting that you state that you did not respond to him (which is true) but don't deny having read the requests. You would have got a big orange bar around your either before making this edit or after pressing the submit button. Are you denying having read the requests from Matt? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

8. In the SwatJester / Eleemosynary talk page interactions during Eleemosynary's talk page, SwatJester states: "If you want to allege harassment, you need to do it in the appropriate forum, which is AN/I" - which is difficult for him to do when he is blocked by SwatJester.

   His block expired within an hour or two of that edit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   True. But, before coming to AN/I, aren't you supposed to discuss concerns with the admin? Where else was he supposed to discuss them whilst blocked? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

9. This is SwatJester's last post on Eleemosynary's talk page. Wasn't SwatJester required to post a notification of this thread for Eleemosynary?

Eleemosynary was aware of it here, as I had directed him to take his complaints to AN/I, and he indicated that he would do so.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have apologised to Eleemosynary for not notifying him: [31] This would surely have been a better response here, wouldn't it - to say "yes, I should have notified him". Also, I find it interesting that you posted the above comment at 1809, and made the apology on Eleemosynary's talk page at 1947. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SwatJester's summary is seriously slanted and leaves out important facts; some of this actions (notably around SatyrTN) are also questionable. Are other admins really comfortable accepting that SwatJester has acted objectively in this matter? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My summary is entirely factual, aside for a couple debatable points which are irrelevant to the broader issue that the block was valid for a 3RR violation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your summary here is incomplete, with significant omissions. The tone of your responses is defensive, in my opinion. I have serious doubts about your ability to act with objectivity with regard to Eleemosynary - and that, not the 3RR violation - is the issue here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only issue I see here may be a conflict of interest with SwatJester (blocking admin) and John Vandenberg (endorsing admin) per this at Commons and maybe SwatJester's own involvement at the Matt Sanchez article including a previous revert and warning of Eleemosynary. There's other edits at Matt Sanchez as well per SwatJester's contribs. It's just highly unusual that they somehow both seem to be watching Eleemosynary here on WP too. That being said, I don't see any harassment per say by SwatJester but he isn't an "uninvolved" admin and probably shouldn't have been the one to block for 3RR. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My edit to that picture on Commons was a result of an OTRS ticket, as was the edits involving the removal of the pictures. I've no idea who John Vandenberg is, nor if he is even an admin. That's hardly an evidence of a conflict of interest.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot to add to Jay's excellent work above. I hope admins will look at the whole story, and respond accordingly. I would like to add that, judging from Swatjester's final paragraph, what he's after is getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. He'd also like me banned from the Sanchez article, even though my edits have been constructive. (Despite the reverting between SatyrTN and me, I think one will find I've improved the article.) To lobby for these bans, Swatjester has constructed arguments on this page of half-truths (again, many thanks to Jay for providing the full story.) I would ask that, in the future, Swatjester defer to other, neutral admins if he has a problem with my edits. I think the guy has the capacity to be a good admin, but he's been very contentious of late, and I don't think he's capable of neutrality when it comes to me. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  You think an edit war is exemplifying constructive editing? Again, I object to your characterization of my summary as half-truths. Calling people liars in any shape and form is simply uncivil, especially when it's not true.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I think my many edits to the Sanchez page that were not part of the exchange between SatyrTN and me were constructive editing. And it is true that your summary is rife with half-truths. Further evidence posted above has shown that. Pointing out half-truths in not incivility, and I wish you would stop claiming "incivility" whenever your tactics are criticized. You were also wrong yesterday, when you threatened to block me for making my case. "Incivility" does not translate to "anything you don't agree with." --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My intentions with regards to this editor

As has been rightly pointed out above, I issued a warning to this editor. Because the editor is a "regular", rather than using a templated warning, I chose to personally write a warning, which this editor seems to believe was "officious". As I said before, I regret that response from him.

I initially intended to block him for 3RR. Given that Satyr and he were engaged in what might tentatively be called an edit war, and I didn't know the facts of the situation well enough to judge "writer" versus "non-writer", I chose, instead, to warn Eleemosynary, who has had some brushes with 3RR in the past. At that point, my intent became simply to warn him away in hopes that we wouldn't need to issue any blocks.

Frankly, I was annoyed by his response to me and decided to walk away, because I didn't want my temper to get the best of me. Actually, I chose to (for real!) go brew a cup of tea.

It is my belief that Eleemosynary is one of those rare editors who, because of natural disposition, chooses to push buttons to see how far he can stretch the system. I think that Eleemosynary thought I'd block him and he could raise a stink. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that SwatJester fell into the trap that was set for me.

I find Eleemosynary's attitude to be abrasive and abusive. In my opinion, the Wiki was not a worse place when he was blocked. I endorse SwatJester's actions, but not for the reasons he stated. My poorly worded personal warning did, in fact, say that Eleemosynary could be blocked after the "next" action. I should have stated that the article was on article probation and he was already on thin ice. However, since that's at the top of the article talk page, I didn't do so. I regret that.

SwatJester did the right thing by blocking Eleemosynary. I probably would have done it for violating article probation and not 3RR, but since I chose in my clumsy warning to reference 3RR and not article probation, SwatJester probably felt that he needed to act on that. Regardless of the wording, SwatJester's actions protected the wiki. - Philippe | Talk 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the exchange between Philippe and myself, Philippe had actively taken sides about the article in question. I don't believe his warning to me came out of good faith, but was a slight way of bullying. (And, yes, an officious one.) Had the warning come from a disinterested editor, I would not have dismissed it so readily.

I also note that, like Swatjester, Philippe issued no warning to SatyrTN, who was just as deserved of one as I was. I haven't checked the policy pages in a while, but I doubt that 3RRs are only be issued to editors with opposing viewpoints from the admin. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing warnings because they are "officious" is never a good approach. As for your last para, this is about you, not anyone else, and "But he did it too." usually doesn't fly as a defense. It's something worth looking into perhaps, but doesn't get you off the hook. Lar: t/c 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking to be let "off the hook." Nor am using "he did it too" as a defense. I'm pointing out that two separate admins -- I'm assuming Philippe is an admin -- actively involved in a contentious article, both issued 3RR warnings to only the editor whose edits they disagreed with. As a matter of fact, Philippe left a very supportive message on SatyrTn's page, which I linked to above. Indeed, that bears looking into.

And no, your statement "this is about you, not anyone else" is incorrect. This is also about Swatjester, who chose to come here pre-emptively during my block, and not notify me until almost a full day later, and who I feel has a serious conflict of interest here. It's equally about Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I took sides in a BLP dispute on this article unrelated to the one you were involved in. The BLP issue in question was around the word "escort", which did not involve the writer/non-writer dispute. I was un-involved in that dispute. I do not apologize for taking sides on a BLP issue. I also DID NOT block you; in other words, I did not take administrator action against an editor that could even - by the BROADEST reading of policy - have not been a neutral action. I remind you that I issued you a polite warning. I do not appreciate your attempts to create a straw-man argument. For the record, I will no longer engage in this discussion because I have presented all the arguments that I have to present. Should new information be required, I will happily do so, but it is very clear to me that this editor is attempting to bait me, and I choose not to engage in that. The editor is welcome to open an RFC should he so desire. My actions are defensible, and I stand by them. - Philippe | Talk 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Philippe, I'm not creating a "straw man" argument. You stated on SatyrTN's page that might be "moving on" to another "battle" on the Sanchez Talk page. Your popping up on my page was correctly interpreted as your next battle, and I (correctly) had none of it. No one is trying to bait you. You say your actions were defensible; I say they're suspect, in light of your previous statements. So be it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This matter came up for discussion on the CU mailing list. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Endorse block on those grounds. The article is on probation. Endorse block on those grounds as well even if the block itself was mistagged. I don't always agree with Swatjester about everything but his action here seems eminently reasonable to me. Eleemosynary seems to be a bit disruptive in his apparently tendentious challenge of this matter. Further, this [32] revert ascribes the reverted edit to Matt Sanchez himself. I can see why someone might conclude that, but it's almost certaintly not correct, and I think the record should show that, as it may have bearing on future matters relating to Matt. Lar: t/c 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the limitations of the privacy of that list, would you be able to expound upon why this is a checkuser matter? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another checkuser ran a check, for what I consider good and valid reasons, to determine what the story of the IP was, and asked the list for advice about how best to handle what he discovered. We are trying hard to reveal the minimum about the IP possible here, and yet not unjustly let an accusation of Matt stand for something it seems almost certain he did not do. That's all I would prefer to say. Lar: t/c 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar, leaving aside the block itself, are you saying that none of what has been presented above raises concerns? Not SatyrTN violating 3RR? Not SatyrTN using admin tools on a page he is editing? Not SwatJester continuing to characterise a warning not to violate 3RR as a notification that 3RR had already been violated? Not describing a block as uncontested when it was challenged by a third editor 19 minutes after it was announced on Eleemosynary's talk page? Not SwatJester apparently not noticing the 3RR violation of the other side of the reversion war? Not SwatJester still maintaining that his presentation here was balanced?
I have no idea what the CU issues are here, and I understand that you must be circumspect in that area - but is that really the only issue here? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Lar commented on SatyrTN, but he has endorsed the block in question on two grounds. Given that he endorses the block, the description in later discussion of a warning given prior to the endorsed block seems irrelevant. As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking Lar or anyone else to do. If you agree that the block was warranted, on the grounds given as justification by the blocking admin, then all the other problems are secondary. Do you think that the block should have been reversed, or a notation about it entered into Eleemosynary's talkpage? Do you think that, long after the fact, SatyrTN should be blocked as well? Lar commented on the CU issue because he is a CU, and the relevance of CU is that an edit in question that was apparently ascribed to Matt Sanchez was not actually made by him. What I'm asking, basically, is for you to explain what you are looking for with this discussion. I agree that SwatJester's summary and conduct is not entirely above reproach, but the action itself was justified and the relevance of the rest is questionable. Avruch ^T 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, thanks Avruch. Jay*Jay ... "all the other problems" or at least a lot of them, seem like you're complaining the paperwork wasn't executed properly. Sorry, that doesn't fly here, this isn't a moot court. I'll add this, if SatyrTN was edit warring as well, then yes, some sort of action may need to have been taken regarding that as well. (c.f. my comments in the IRC RfAR where I took Phil Sandifer to task for singling out one editor for edit warring while ignoring all the rest) But it is not necessary that the action taken be exactly the same. If we have one editor who has a long and checkered block log including multiple 3RR blocks, and another editor who has never been blocked at all except once in error, it seems to me that blocking one and merely warning the other is not an unreasonable action. Should Swatjester maybe have found someone else? Maybe. But I also don't buy the "as soon as an editor voices any sort of opinion once, they're no longer able to take any admin action at all in any remotely related case" theory that some subscribe to. Lar: t/c 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all the admins involved in the blocking and supporting of such could be encouraged to enlist outside/uninvolved editors next time around. It seems like the block was warranted but given they were all involved parties it smacks of less than impartial handling especially given the contentiousness between Swatjester and Eleemosynary. Benjiboi 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many months of no interaction would be enough, in your view? Again, I don't buy the "only previously uninvolved people can say anything" angle. Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an exaggeration of the "angle." How about we limit it to admins who don't have off-site blogs attacking the editors they're trying to block? --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Amending my statement. I'm not convinced the block was warranted at this point and to me seems quite troubling that Swatjester was involved at all. In my understanding we're aiming to be impartial and that includes admins who by all accounts should know better. Although I don't agree with Eleemosynary on the issue that was being revert-warred I've found them to be pretty spot-on on most issues and frankly someone who's contributions far outweigh snarkiness. I think Eleemosynary would have done much better to simply engage the very active talk page on this and would have quickly realized there was little support, however, this does not also excuse and admin blocking them for what easily can be seen as a personal conflict. Benjiboi 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue about Eleemosynary receiving an inadequate warning about 3RR violations. Checking his block log I see he's been blocked for 3RR or edit warring on about six previous occasions. He has also reported at least one other use for a 3RR violation.[33] The user has been on WP for years and can be expected to be familiar with major policies, and he's certainly aware of WP:3RR. There's no need to keep reminding experienced users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Colleenthegreat - disruptive editing and threat of sockpuppetry

I would appreciate comments on this.

Background: User: Colleenthegreat has a long history of silly and disruptive edits.

• If you read her talk page, you will see that virtually every comment is a warning to stop making silly edits. I have gone through her edit history and I have discovered no meaningful edits to articles - only silly edits that were eventually (usually immediately) reverted.
• On one talk page she proposed an edit that would be a clear violation of NPOV and V; one editor told her this was a bad idea and her response was that this was just "islamic propaganda" [34]; then an editor warned her that she should read those policies and her response was, in essence, that she refuses to abide by NPOV and V [35].
• I warned her - and to repeat, mine was just the last of many such warnings - to stop making such edits [36].
• Later, I checked her contributions and discovered that in one day she made dozens more silly edits; for what it is worth the last straw for me was when she changed the word heroine in an article, with a link to hero, to heroin, with a link to the article on the drug [37], and I finally blocked her for one month.
• She appealed the block and Mangojoice declined her appeal [38] and [39]
• She appealed again and Jayron declined her appeal [40]
• And NOW she has simply declared that "I have renewed my IP address and created another account from which to edit and bypass my block."

User:Ricky81682 reblocked her for a month - thus adding two days to my original block - but it seems to me that at this point it is clear she is a troll trying to game the system and I believe she needs more sever action and monitoring, monitoring I cannot do all by myself. By the way, her excuse for the heroin edit is that she is not a native English speaker. Now, even if this were true, I would not give it any weight because (1) many of us are not nativee English speakers and we make good edits and (2) someone who is conscious of their limitations with English would have checked a dictionary and the different links before making the heroin change. Frankly, I think she is lying and if you read all of the stuff she has written protesting the block you will see that - native or not - she is fluent in English; there is no excuse for the heroin edit it is just vandalism. Her refusal to accept NPOV and V in one discussion, her refusal to stop making silly edits after many editors have posted numerous warnings on her page, and her refusal to accept a one month block after two other admins have rejected her appeal, all add up in my mind to vandal/troll. I hope others will review this and at least keep an eye on her as I am fairly certain now that she will do something to evade Ricky81682's most recent attempt to deal with her. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't endorse the block that strongly, especially not for this duration. I only left it in place because of the very odd proposal at Talk:Jesus; the "nonsense edits" for the most part look like reasonable but not verified edits, although there are one or two strange ones. This user never got a "final warning" template, and the first block was for a month. This just seems overly harsh. Mangojuice^talk 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And her assertion that she will resort to sock-puppetry to evade the ban does not give you pause? This does not make you even more concerned she is a troll? Anyway, would you propose to lift the block, or reduce the amount of time? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mangojuice. One month seems excessive for a first block. I only just did a "one month" block again but since it had been 3 days since Slrubenstein's block, that ended up adding three days to the block. That's why I put a 24-hour protection on the talk page. I wanted her to sit it out for 24 hours and if she gave a good unblock reason, I'd lift it. However, it seems that she instead decided to post another long, similar unblock request on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the protection has elapsed from her talk page, so she's free to request another unblock. I've suggested having a different tone, which I hope she does. I'll leave it to another admin to decide though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz again

User:THUGCHILDz ignores again this consensus for wording Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket are all claimed to be the national sport by various people in national sport#list of countries' national sports and pushing cricket as most popular Australian sport but cricket is certainly not most popular Australian sport!!!! I inserted Australia and South Africa in national sport#countries with various most popular sports citing 3 sports but THUGCHILDz removes it always. THUGCHILDz likes cricket but pushing this sport in all corners!!!! He is a POV warrior against consensus of other editors and against evidence: may you stop his absurd edit warring? I report him for second time in this page.--PIO (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

May be you should be the one that should be reported because if anyone looks into it, they will see that there was no consensus but the closest we got to a consensus is not what you are saying. And I'm not the one that fights against consensus of other users, you are. Just have a look at it and you guys will know who's at fault. PIO is being like I'm right and everyone else that disagree with me is wrong. Here's an example. There's been numerous cases of that happening. I'm not the one at fault here and most people involved would back me up on that. I was tryning to be nice and see if we could have resolved the issue on the talk pages but PIO is really difficult to communicate with him/her. Should just write a complaint against him?--THUGCHILDz 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend to PIO that he produce version diffs of THUGCHILDz removing valid content. Also, I was the mediator at the above case. I closed it as being at an impasse. Therefore it should not be IMO cited as a consensus (otherwise I would've closed it as such). Uninvolved admin review is welcomed. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is intolerable. I've been involved in this one, and anyone who cares to look at the diffs will see that if there's a "troublemaker" who stubbornly insists on having his own way above and against consensus it is PIO. PIO has fixed views and a modus operandi that is opposed to discussion, agreement, compromise or consensus. It's not in his nature. This complaint is just another attempt to get his own way. If anything should be brought to the attention of ANI, it's PIO's canvassing and edit warring. Have a look at your leisure: [41] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted this comment--PIO (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

Individual has been Stalking me as well as forum shopping [42] . Everywhere I go he follows me and edits right after me. What was he doing at the Stony Brook article? what was he doing here [43] Uconnstud (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't double post. This discussion is happening a few posts up already. Natalie (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees is abusing the system

At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki, Appletrees (talk · contribs) added myself (Nanshu) and others to the list of checkuser.[44] I've asked him/her (actually I asked Thatcher), and it's now clear that his/her excuse[45] doesn't bear the criteria of checkuser. Endroit and others are the victim of Appletrees' abuse of the system.

That checkuser has been processed by a couple of people. And they even use personal communication [46][47]. I think we need third opinions. Thanks in advance. --Nanshu (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you are not a sock/meat, but I thought you were because your history of biased edits on korean articles[48][49][50], your stalking me[51][52][53],[54] and your knowledge of 2channel. You strongly urged the admin, LordAmeth to forget about the meatpuppetry from 2channel and not to believe Korean editors. And you said the same story of what 2channel editors plan to accuse me at ANI. Please see the table.

Excerpt from 2channel 英語版Wikipediaでの朝鮮人工作を監視せよ　part1[55]

449 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/09(土) 03:03:23 ID:2PVW7dwd 相変わらず訳の解らん垢が沸いてるなあ。('A`) >>441 ﾊﾟｰｿﾅﾙｱﾀｯｸというよりは、ｹﾞｰﾐﾝｸﾞ･ｻﾞ･ｼｽﾃﾑに見えるけどね。 >>443 依頼系の乱用なんで、ｱｰﾋﾞﾄﾚｰｼｮﾝなんだが…はてさて。 490 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/14(木) 00:34:44 ID:VknGi0g7 さうすこりあであっぷると合戦してる人、頭にくるだろうけどともかく人形 作りだけは止めろよ。編集の内容はあっぷるのリバートはソースあり記述の 削除、Factタグの削除、であんたの編集の方が正しいのは一目瞭然なんだからさ。 だけど、ソック作ってリバート合戦したら絶対にあんたが一方的に悪者にされるよ。 532 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/27(水) 04:46:52 ID:qBcGh3Mo 今度はさんじゅすとにCU出してる。 円泥さんといい、おっぷといい、CUの乱発になると思うんだけど この辺って常連から見てどうよ？ 罰則とかってないの？ 555 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 00:37:25 ID:lyEmtCBi 確かに最近のCUはレターコードのどれにも該当してないのに CUされてるなあ。 556 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 00:56:15 ID:7o C4DiI >>555 それはひどいね。管理人お知らせボードでりんごの行為をまとめて議論した方がいいのでは。 558 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 10:39:42 ID:H/sTmUhZ cuのリクの濫用ってどこに投げればいいの？ checkuserの人じゃなくて。 563 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 23:22:14 ID:7o C4DiI >>558 アドミンのーてぃ酢ボードでしょ。 566 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/03/01(土) 09:58:08 ID:wuGmOPRW >>563 投げてみた。計画なく動いてるんで この先どうするか考えてない。

I also welcome 3rd opinion, or more admins watching articles like Sea of Japan, Liancourt Rocks, South Korea, Koreans in Japan, Asuka period and so forth that were discussed on 2chan and edited by socks. --Appletrees (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s You said I unreasonably included Mochi (talk · contribs) in my RFCU file[56], but here is an evidence that Mochi is a 2channel meatpuppet and stalker.[57]

Original texts	Translation
473 ：米製品：2008/02/09(土) 13:52:10 ID:WJ8ywzm6 >>472 あの人は突込みどころ満載で面白いんだよ。 ストーカー呼ばわりされてるけど、「だってお前間違い多いじゃん」と開き直ることにした。 韓国国宝の話題について朝鮮日報（日本語記事）をソースにしておいたら、「韓国語版や英語版記事がなくて、日本語版だけなら日本人が書いたかもしれない。そもそも朝鮮日報は俺らみたいな若者は読まない産経みたいな新聞だから、ダメー」と無茶な主張を繰り広げたときはどうかと思ったけどｗ	473 : Rice product He is very aggressive but looks funny Although I am considered as a stalker from him, I decided to keep a straight face as saying "You wrote a lot of wrong info".

How do you think, Nanshu?--Appletrees (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. Posting on public pages in other languages is rude. Corvus cornix_talk 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting the original Japanese sentences with translation but I didn't have much time to translate them and Nanshu and several Japanese editors said about my poor translation ability. I will translate it as soon as I can. --Appletrees (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In the aforementioned checkuser report, Appletrees gave a false statement suggesting that I was involved in editing the Hoe (dish) article using these diffs (in a completely unrelated article).[58] Since that particular request was unanswered, Appletrees did another report, which looked like yet another fishing expedition. Who knows whatever other bogus accusations he's got cooked up.

To be fair, I believe that there are signs of sockpuppetry on BOTH sides, reminiscent of the old Appleby vs. Kamosuke rivalry from 2006.

Appletrees (talk · contribs), though, has a buddy system of his own, cooperating with the POV-pushing IP range 75.6.x.x thru 75.7.x.x. When I posted a {{3RR}} warning for 75.7.8.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [59], Appletrees was quick to remove it.[60] (If any admin is interested, I can provide further proof of disruptive revert-warring (including a few recent ones) by the IP ranges 75.6.x.x thru 75.7.x.x.)--Endroit (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit (talk · contribs), make RFCU file on me as many as you want because I have nothing to hide. :D I joined in Korean Wikipedia first which 2channel people already catch and mentioned at 2channel. Could you guys explain why you try to covering 2channel? Not both side, just Japanese side. You must not mislead the thread again. --Appletrees, Endroit, watch your language. The result is likely from evidences I've provided. If the case is fishing, checkusers might've declined. As for fishing expedition, you have such experiences[61] You proved that you filed several bogus files on Korean editors like these as well. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639 during the poll of changing name of Dokdo and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Odst. You must speak of truth. --Appletrees (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The part of that checkuser report including Endroit and other users was archived without a decision, not "likely" like you say. Who's not telling the truth here?--Endroit (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're so persistent to move my edit down. You obviously lied as switching Saintjus't case above with the case of From2008Kawaseki who was banned regardless of RFCU.

Appletrees did another report, which looked like yet another fishing expedition. Who knows whatever other bogus accusations he's got cooked up.

You just prove that you're fabricating your own comment. Besides, filing the case again was warranted per admin, Spebi.--Appletrees (talk)04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees missed the crux of my statement:

• In the aforementioned checkuser report, Appletrees gave a false statement suggesting that I was involved in editing the Hoe (dish) article using these diffs (in a completely unrelated article).[62]

--Endroit (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you keep lying. When did I say you make edit wars on Gaijin? I said to Thatcher that dion user did so on the article at Saintjust's RFCU case.[63] I also surely said, the latter who is Nanshu editing Hoe (dish, not you. Please don't make further untruth. --Appletrees (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC) User:Appletrees Please have some Ocha Igor Berger (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Hoe (dish) edits are unrelated like Appletrees now seems to be saying, there was no evidence submitted in this checkuser report showing any suspicion of sockpuppetry between myself and the other editors. In other words, that part of his report was bogus.--Endroit (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're very poor at fabricating information to turn attention from 2channel Japanese sock/meatpuppetry for a long time. (over 4 years). You must tell me why you intentionally lied about the aformentioned links and my comments? The hoe diffs are to say about how Nanshu edited in contrary to his urge to LordAmeth. The result on FromKawaseki is not satisfying because they're too many meatpuppets going on and I already prove my speculation on Japanese sock/meat puppetries with several RFCU. So don't lie anymore. Your bogus RFCU file on me is really bogus. --Appletrees (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees' inclusion of myself in his RFCU was done with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, hence bogus.

My inclusion of Appletrees in my RFCU was valid, at least under criteria E for revert-warring:

• In Kofun period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
  • 1st revert: 05:06, 8 January 2008 (Ecthelion83)
  • 2nd revert: 22:13, 8 January 2008 (Appletrees)
  • 3rd revert: 22:20, 8 January 2008 (Appletrees)
  • 4th revert: 22:36, 8 January 2008 (Ecthelion83)
  • 5th revert: 00:51, 9 January 2008 (Ecthelion83)
  • Version being reverted to: 22:19, 7 January 2008 (Appletrees)

--Endroit (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the likelihood of Appletrees' being related to the others I listed above (involved in Sea of Japan)?. Is it "inconclusive"?--Endroit (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [64]

You also falsified about the RFCU case. I clearly said my reason of the inclusion of you.[65] You arbitrary included me because of your retaliation to my reverting your one edit at Sea of Japan.[66] I rather repeatedly suggested you to make diffs on my and the other's possible 3RR violation but you didn't until I did it myself. By my repeat request to check myself, Thatcher looked at the declined case. [67][68][69]

You already lied about your fabrication on evidences more than 3 times. Who would you believe you? Just bogus. --Appletrees (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was listed on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amazonfire by Appletrees. Appletrees insisted the evidence were in So Far from the Bamboo Grove, Kofun period and An Jung-geun. I wrote in Talk:So Far from the Bamboo Grove one year ago, but did not touch the other articles. What is evidence ? Before the Requests for checkuser, I and Appletrees were having conflicts at several places. That's why I was listed, I'm sure. I agree "Appletrees is abusing the system". The first conflict was at Talk:Lee Myung-bak#Lee Myun-bak is Zainichi, or not?, User talk:Appletrees/Archive 1#朝鮮人, and User talk:Mochi#Ilbonnom in September 2007 about what Korean people were/are called in Japan. I thought he/she is a Koeran point of view pusher. I got interested in his/her behaviour and keep checking since then... Everybody has a black list in Wikipedia in his mind, doesn't he?--Mochi (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have another comment. Appletrees's account in other projects are Applebee(Japanese Wikipedia), Applebee(Korean Wikipedia), and Applebee(commons). The name Appletrees resembles Appleby, a blocked user. Interests of both are similar. So I also suspect they are same person, though Appletrees is denying.--Mochi (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I posted your comment at 2channel, you left that you're stalking me to do meatpuppetry. According to the 2channel, you and 2channel members share a black list on Korean editors, monitored them and access to IRC to discuss English Wikipedia. So don't make a bogus allegation on me. As I said to Kusunose or you earlier, I included you in the file because you begun suddenly wikistalking me ever since our last encounter at our talk page. I thought you connected to Amazonfire or Kusunose. Not for the listed articles. You hit knock the wrong door. Can you tell me why you did not comment about your activities at 2channel? --Appletrees (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to explain my activity outside Wikipedia? Actually, I participate in the 2ch forum. There are many forums about wikipedia in 2ch. If I get interested in the topic of the forum, I get involved. If I'm not interested in or do not know well, I ignore it. I write in Wikipedia with my sense, not others'. So calling me meatpuppet is nonsense. 2ch is an open anonymous forum, so I'm not surprised if you are also participated in because you seem to understand Japanese. I'm not sure who is Amazonfire or Kusunose in 2ch because of anonymity, and even uncertain they participated in 2ch. In 2ch, showy person becomes a topic, and you are such a person. I think talking about Wikipedia, and Wikipedians outside Wikipedia is no problem. I don't discuss with IRC, email or other messengers. I don't know other people doing or not. Are you doing such communication with somebody?--Mochi (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mochi, you admitted that you left the above comment and enjoyed chasing me at 2channel. I said my Japanese ability to you several times.--Appletrees (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my comment. I'm surprised you found it. Actually, I enjoy talking with you, because you are strong Korean POV pusher, and sometimes lacks logics and write wrong information. Our opinions are so different, that is interesting. That's why I check you. I'm sure I should not be blamed because of the comment outside Wikipedia. 2ch is an informal forum like pub.--Mochi (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Which comment are you talking about? Can somebody post a link and a translation please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean the one Appletrees wrote above.

Original texts

Translation

473 ：米製品：2008/02/09(土) 13:52:10 ID:WJ8ywzm6 >>472 あの人は突込みどころ満載で面白いんだよ。 ストーカー呼ばわりされてるけど、「だってお前間違い多いじゃん」と開き直ることにした。 韓国国宝の話題について朝鮮日報（日本語記事）をソースにしておいたら、「韓国語版や英語版記事がなくて、日本語版だけなら日本人が書いたかもしれない。そもそも朝鮮日報は俺らみたいな若者は読まない産経みたいな新聞だから、ダメー」と無茶な主張を繰り広げたときはどうかと思ったけどｗ

473 : Rice product That guy is interesting because he has many things to point out. Although I am considered as a stalker from him, I decided to keep a straight face as saying "You wrote a lot of wrong info". About the National Treasures of Korea, when I cited Chosun Ilbo(Japanese version), he said "I do not admit Japanese version instead of Korean or English version, because it might be written by Japanese editors. Furthermore, we youg guys don't read Chosun Ilbo, it is like Sankei". I was surprised at his crazy claims.

I fixed and added the translation. I wrote my experience at User talk:Mochi#Non-English citation. I used casual words for 2ch.--Mochi (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I already past the absurd allegation filed by Enroit, and please make a file on me if you need so. :D The RFCU file on you is inconclusive because of my lengthy file and Baru (talk · contribs) begun to chase me just like you. --Appletrees (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on this whole affair: This is evidently a sad case. I am quite convinced that Appletrees is on to something here, the meatpuppeting threads evidently exist and document a pattern of serious abuse from some Japanese editors. I would definitely want to see us getting rid of half a dozen editors as a result of this. But in all these reams and reams of discussion, documentation and accusations, I have yet to see a single actionable bit of concrete information that would implicate identifiable individuals. Previously, Appletrees was flooding RFCU and SSP with sockpuppet reports until he was told off for disruption, each time accusing a different subset of Japanese editors of socking; each time the sparse but very real indicators of actual socking were hidden under heaps of vacuous accusations. Appletrees, I know this is a difficult situation for you and you have been up against a very demanding and important task, but you definitely need to get better at presenting your stuff in a brief, matter-of-fact way, or you're only shooting yourself in the foot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As every single of my edits here has been monitored by 2channel editors, I don't have much time to translate the whole thing into English. I'd just watched their disruptive behaviors for so long, and evidences over 3 month are too old to check. Endroit' wonderful alteration on the evidences which is no news to me helps me a lot. --Appletrees (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: Okay, to keep the noise level down on this page, Appletrees and Mochi, you are both hereby banned, until further notice, from posting to this thread except for the purpose of giving direct, brief answers to questions asked to you by the administrators.

• Question to Mochi: You have just admitted you were active in some of those 2chan forums. Did you ever participate in one of the threads quoted here ("Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication...") or similarly titled threads? Did you participate in threads specifically discussing Appletrees or other named users? Did you initiate such threads?
• Question to Appletrees: Can you give me one or two concrete translated quotes where somebody discussed a specific ongoing Wikipedia debate on 2chan in such a way that the 2chan thread can clearly be linked to the activity of a specific editor on Wikipedia?
• Another question to Appletrees: Why did you choose "Applebee" as your user name on the other wikis? Are you or aren't you User:Appleby? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Did you ever participate in one of the threads quoted here ("Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication...") or similarly titled threads?; Yes.
• Did you participate in threads specifically discussing Appletrees or other named users?; No.
• Did you initiate such threads?; No.

--Mochi (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can you guys give it a rest? Why all this off wiki stuff being brought here. Give yourselves some breathing room and time to reflect how you can all contribute together to Wikipedia instead of trying to prove who is a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, and puppet master! Igor Berger (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, actually, I disagree, this thing with the 2chan activities needs to be clarified now. This is the most useful thread these guys have been producing for the last few months. I want to see a couple of good firm community bans at the end of the day. Have to go now, but I'll deal with it again later today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree w/Fut. Perf. on this point. This isn't the first time we've see 2chan used to coordinate meatpuppetry in the Japanese/Korean disputes--it's happened on Liancourt Rocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask you a favor for Endroit to stop writing here as well because he has been lying on me. As for question 1 to me, The articles they talk about are almost everything related to J-K, but right now I can quickly translate some fo Azukimonaka's comment at 2channel. Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) mentioned about Flying tiger (talk · contribs) and his involvement in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan He also said about his creating Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin at Oct 29th, 2007. You can also their clear violations on meatpuppetry collapsed boxes at Talk:Sea of Japan

Original text from 2channel	Translation
952 名前：マンセー名無しさん 2007/10/29(月) 01:29:38 ID:j0fYPU3H] 英語版Wikipediaに Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin を作ってみた	952 Name: Anonymous user, 2007-10-29 I created the Category:Korean culture of Japanese origin in English Wikipedia.
972 名前：マンセー名無しさん 2007/11/02(金) 10:48:03 ID:ynUOBH2s 飛ぶ虎から、mediationの依頼が来た。 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan これって参加したほうがいいのかなぁ？	972 Name: Anonymous user, 2007-11-02 I was asked by Flying tiger. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan Is is good whether I participate in or not?
28 名前：マンセー名無しさん 2007/05/12(土) 11:22:55 ID:q3qgTLf4 それから Category:Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea Category:Anti-Japanese_sentiment のカテゴリを英語版のWikiに追加したいのだけど、誰かやり方知らない？	28. 2007-05-12 And Category:Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea Category:Anti-Japanese_sentiment I want to add this category to English Wikipedia, but don't know how to. Is somebody able to do it?
34 名前：ニダ軍師 ◆tr.t4dJfuU 2007/05/13(日) 06:11:10 :ID:a7jE6QKz 作ってみた。 Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea	Nida staff(which is also racial slur to Koreans) I made it. Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea Here is the diff of the creation of the category.[by Sir Joestar]

As for the second question, I like foods of "Applebee's", franchise restaurant. I'm of course not Appleby, and I tried to register my account name as Applebee or Applebees here but I counldn't at that time. I'm of course not a Appleby Why would I register the very similar name if I really were the banned user. --Appletrees (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Applebee is still empty.--Mochi (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees' comments are unbalanced, selective and wrong enough to lead me into the temptation to rebut. But I refrain for now because I know that will switch the focus. S/he simply dodged my question. My (and Endroit's, I think) point is that Appletrees listed me to the checkuser request even though that didn't meet any of the checkuser criteria. That's an abuse of the system. The next stage is whether or not Appletrees admits that, and what other Wikipedians think of his/her wrongdoing.

Just one question to Future Perfect at Sunrise: How do you know 2ch? Doesn't all information you have come from Appletrees? --Nanshu (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How many times does Appletrees need to accuse me of lying, in this very discussion? At least 3 times. Show me the precise diff's where I lied, or that's a personal attack.--Endroit (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology relating to Sea of Japan

I think I understand Appletrees' true intentions in the Sea of Japan article. He's obviously out to obscure the issue, and try to incriminate as many opponents as he can. And I think he's accusing me of having something to do with 2channel as well.

Here's what happened so far after Appletrees and his friends engaged in POV-pushing[70] [71][72] [73] [74] [75] [76] :

• On Jan. 19, I file an RFCU which included Appletrees together with (what turned out to be) General Tojo (talk · contribs) socks.

• After Appletrees removes warning tags from his fellow meatpuppets, I start this AN post, and Appletrees is chastised by some admins here.

• We still manage to reach consensus through this early discussion.

• On Jan. 27, Styrofoam1994 (talk · contribs) starts a ridiculous poll, which obscures the issue.

• On Feb. 13, in Appletrees' ongoing RFCU, Jehochman (talk · contribs) raises concern that "Appletrees might be using this process to further position in content disputes with other editors".

• Unfortunately on Feb. 15, canvassing occurs at 2channel urging everyone to "oppose", despite the poll already being in favor of "oppose" anyways by a wide margin (9-2).

• On Feb. 15, Appletrees makes this long post, claiming foul play by 2channel.

• On Feb. 23, Appletrees adds myself and a dozen others to his ongoing RFCU without proper qualifications for RFCU.

• I complain to Thatcher here, and that portion of Appletrees' ongoing RFCU was eventually archived.

I thank the admins Haemo, Nlu, Future Perfect, and others, who have been involved in the Sea of Japan article recently. It is unfortunate that canvassing has occurred there. But it is also unfortunate that Appletrees is trying to use 2channel as an argument to attack others, repeatedly accusing others of lying. Falsely accusing others in such a blatant manner should be a violation of WP:NPA.--Endroit (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandal needs block

User:Panelgets is vandalizing Maddox (writer) [77] [78] [79] and has several alternate accounts that amidst other vandalism are stalking me (see IP users at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graduation&action=history). Also the same user as User:Amazing cow indefblocked above. --Saber^Excalibur! 07:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Panelgets was indefinitely blocked for repeated trolling (and is being discussed further down this page). Amazing cow was indefinitely blocked a 4:30 this morning —αlεx•mullεr 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Metzelder Siow

This user is refuse to follow the Manual of Style on italics the TV programs title. So many times, I'm explain to him this is one type of MOS in Wikipedia. However, he refuse to follow the style and call I'm make the rules. No that, he revert the editing I'm make.

I'm report here because I'm don't want to trigger the 3 revert rule. I hope someone can deal with it. Thank you. --Aleenf1 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

216.231.41.66 Threatening to Sue Wikipedia over VfD

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

SPA User: Anthon01 and similar accounts on homeopathy and WP:FRINGE alternative medicine articles

A long standing discussion on the homeopathy talk page about the meaning of WP:NPOV has now spilled over to the talk page of Neutral Point of View itself: [80], for example. I went there to try to explain further NPOV as requested: [81], as best as I understand it. However, part of the difficulty is that these SPAs (or near-SPAs): User:Anthon01, User:Whig and User: Levine2112 have become adept at gaming the system and wikilawyering and charging that any disagreement with them is violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, so techniques that could have been used in the past, like disagreement and confrontation, are no longer useful and in fact quite dangerous. So after realizing that I could not explain NPOV to them (after trying for 6 months or more and dozens if not hundreds of times), I gave up and told them I would not further oppose them or disagree with them (given the current environment on Wikipedia where disagreement over such issues with WP:FRINGE elements is discouraged): [82][83] I repeatedly invited them to suggest new wording for NPOV or the homeopathy related documents as they saw fit: [84].

I did this since disagreeing with these SPAs is used as an excuse by these SPAs to charge an editor with violations of all kinds of WP policy. However, even when I said I would no longer disagree, I was still charged with violations of WP policy. User: Anthon01 and the related SPAs involved have now accused me of violating WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: [85][86]. It would be helpful if someone would offer some advice, since we are no longer allowed to disagree, even politely, with POV pushers and WP:FRINGE elements. And now even declining to continue to disagree is viewed as a violation of WP policy by these SPAs. So what are we supposed to do?--Filll (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also include User:DanaUllman as another of the SPAs, although this is highly dangerous to suggest since he is under administrative protection from any and all charges of misbehavior, although he has engaged in some outrageously disruptive behavior on these articles over and over and over.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I might also include User: Arion 3x3 and User: Area69 and several others. It is highly likely that we are entertaining a few sockpuppets and meat puppets on the page, as User: JzG has previously suggested.-Filll (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with civility seeming to be valued over NPOV contributions - and I admit that I don't have the solution to that - but I have to say that you're not really telling the whole story, here. Your repeated response of "Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks." could probably be seen as stonewalling. Aside from that, I don't see any problems with your activity on the talk page. I do think some of your comments are a little melodramatic, though; are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement?

As a more general warning to the community, I have to say that we need to somehow make sure that WP:NPOV is being valued on as high a level as WP:CIVIL, because the actions of the editors to whom Filll refers above and others like them - all of whom I believe are acting in good faith - are presenting a very real threat to the quality of Wikipedia's articles on pseudoscience. I think we need to take notice of that before too many more contributors are driven off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeated myself by cutting and pasting because it became too tedious to rephrase the answer after answering the 500th time in slightly different wording. With all due respect, what I take from your response is that we should abandon NPOV. Ok, fair enough. I should expect to see the policy pages rewritten accordingly then?--Filll (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you should take from my response is that I am in wholehearted agreement with you that we need to make it harder for SPAs to attack NPOV in a good faith manner, but that I'm frankly bereft of useful proposals in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel you have to say 10 or more times this is dangerous? I don't see any reason why you have to repeat what you have said more than once or twice? Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation is, an SPA like User:Anthon01 is allowed to ask the same question 500 times over 6 months and keep asking if he does not like the answer and venue shop until the cows come home, but he now charges someone who gives him the same answer more than once with uncivility. Does anyone notice this? He is allowed to of course since he is an SPA with few edits and a newbie and a FRINGE promoter so of course we have to be fair blah blah blah. Ok so be it... We are creating a hellish environment because we have to cater to SPAs like Anthon01 at the cost of reducing productivity. DanaUllman also has spammed the page with the same material hundreds of times over and over and over, ignoring the discussion before and rebuttals of his arguments and then spamming again and again and again with the same material since we have to be fair to the FRINGE and avoid WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ask the same question 500 times. I'm sorry but you are grossly misrepresenting what has gone on here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement? The slightest disagreement or hint of problem is used as an excuse from these SPAs and POV pushers to charge someone with a violation. Some days ago, even calling someone a "homepathy promoter" was used as an excuse to demand administrative sanctions against some editors (more than once) and this received considerable support including from admimistrators. It was only though extraordinary means that this complaint was thwarted otherwise there would have been administrative sanctions for using the foul uncivil curse of "homeopathy promoter". And since then, things have escalated where even milder affronts have lead to charges of uncivility and violations of WP:AGF. What is happening is that in the frantic efforts of the community to remove all disagreement and incivility, you are handing an immense set of weapons to POV pushers and socks and SPAs and trolls. So be it. You want this, you got it.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But no actual sanctions were handed out, correct? This is why I find your assertions that answering people's questions is "dangerous" a little hollow: nobody's been sanctioned for civil disagreement.

That aside, though, I agree with you that we need to find a way to enforce WP:NPOV as diligently as we enforce WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, enforcement is done by uninvolved admins, and, while it's really easy for an uninvolved admin to swoop in and recognize civility violations, it's much more difficult for one to recognize POV-pushing, especially good faith POV-pushing as is going on there.

I hung around Talk:Homeopathy for a while some time ago, in the hopes of finding a core of moderates on both sides who could work out content disputes while isolating the extremists on each side. I found several such moderates on the science side. I found none on the pseudoscience side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that uninvolved admins are not a renewable resource. Consider this: If I notice an edit conflict, I will read the arguments and form an opinion. I can then either hand out blocks out of the blue sky, or I explain my opinion and warn the parties - ups...now I'm suddenly an involved party. In many of these discussions, especially on the science/pseudoscience border, most educated and sane neutral observers will choose a side and stop being uninvolved. For an excellent example, see talk: Waterboarding, where one editor has complained (paraphrased) that "all admins who come to this page support one side! We need a neutral admin to handle the issue!"--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am acutely aware of that problem, and indeed it's more or less why I'm not handing out any article bans. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes User: Whig has been sanctioned more than once. User: Anthon01 as well I believe. User: DanaUllman has as well. Some others have as well. Some others are listed here. --Filll (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These spurious accusations of incivility are a serious problem. Anthon01 has hit me with these several times. When called to account he apologizes[87] but the sincerity of his apology is undermined by the fact that he keeps on doing it.

This behavior is damaging in several ways. It inhibits debate because (as Filll says) one never knows when honest and civil disagreement will bring a charge of incivility. Even if there ultimately is no sanction, it's draining to have to respond to the accusations. But far more importantly it undermines respect for WP:CIV as a policy when people see it being used speciously as a way to hound others. Editors have learned that flinging meritless accusations of WP:CIV wears down their opponent and carries no cost to themselves. We need to stop that.

Again, this is not about civil behavior, which I fully support. It's about gaming WP:CIV through a constant drip-drip-drip of empty accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am gaming WP:CIV? I believe this happen twice between us and I apologized soon after without any reservation. I even invited you back to the discussion. IMO, I don't think two mistakes make the case that you are trying to make. Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are only the two examples where I was the target. There are lots of other examples involving other editors. I'll leave it to those involved to supply diffs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not about you personally but asking for general advice for how to handle a group of which you are just one member allegedly. Of course, clearly I am at fault. And perhaps my account should be deleted and I should be permanently banned from Wikipedia? I will volunteer to leave immediately since I have offended so many and violated so many rules by suggesting we follow WP:NPOV which of course is a deprecated policy and I was stupid to think we should follow it.--Filll (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made it personal by placing my name at the top and mischaracterizing some of my statements. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this another ad-hoc invented rule that we now have to follow? "No using people's names in subheadings on discussion pages?" I have never heard of such a rule. Does this apply to all the spurious civility complaints you and your compatriots have opened against me? Can I complain about how you "made it personal" when you placed several baseless "civility warnings" on my page? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll insist that his POV on NPOV and minority subjects is the right POV. I went to NPOV to get feedback from univolved editors. The key term here is interpretation. Does anyone here believe that there is only one interpretation of NPOV and minority subjects? Anthon01 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

His interpretation includes, that the article could be 98% criticism! Would anyone like to vouch for that? Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll. What did you mean here[88] and here.[89] I think you should respond. You accused me of quite a bit here (without notice), and now are afraid to respond to my defense? Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Raymond suggested you back off a little. You responded Nothing succeeds like excess.[90] What did you mean by that? And why did you delete that suggestion and statement from your talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what we've been talking about. I suggested that Filll tone it down a bit; he responded with a good-humored remark that maybe he was being excessive. And now Anthon01 wants to take him to task for it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no assumptions. I asked him what he meant? You took it as a joke which is fine. I don't know that it was. He quickly deleted your suggestion and his response that you call a joke. Another editor considered his involvement on the NPOV page in this issue to be melodramatic and possible stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is one big pile of unrelated users with similar POVs on the subject of homeopathy in particular and alt med in general: Whig (talk · contribs), Anthon01 (talk · contribs), Peter morrell (talk · contribs), DanaUllman (talk · contribs), and so on. Going further afield, we find more users with eccentric beliefs as far as science is concerned, such as Martinphi (talk · contribs).

I would suggest that the first batch of these are classic tendentious editors. I haven't looked at Martinphi's contributions recently, so no comment there. Singly, these chaps aren't too hard to cope with: their incessant POV-pushing is relatively harmless, as you can see by the result of Dana Ullman's brief attempts to insert homeopathy into Beethoven; as a group there is more of a problem. I actually don't have an easy solution here. Whig and Peter morrell should have been banned long ago, or at least topic-banned, but the truth is Wikipedia has no easy way of coping with the user who pushes one POV all the time in a civil manner. Moreschi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so as a starter why not topic ban them both? Can we get a community consensus for that? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban who and for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no cause for topic banning me whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would favor at least temporary community topic ban for both of these SPAs and maybe a couple of others. It would calm things down tremendously and allow several articles to be returned to productive editing after they have been mired in a slow decline for months on end. I have received even a private communication from a pro-homeopathy editor who is so disgusted with the antics of these SPAs that he wrote me "I don't think I will be doing any more edits to the homeopathy...there is very little wrong with it but folks just keep pounding away at minutiae...not happy with the direction it is heading in and have better things to do with my time <expletive deleted> it...its just a big waste of time and who cares wikipedia is not respected anyway..." (with permission). Now when not just the pro-science editors but the pro-homeopathy editors are losing heart, you know we have a problem.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And what of your stonewalling and melodrama? Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - not that I pretend to be an uninvolved admin (I'm about 90% uninvolved, but I realize that that's not sufficient). There are quite a few topic bans I'd like to hand out, and neither side would have a monopoly on them. But there are a few anti-homeopathy editors who aren't being totally intransigent; if things haven't changed since I was there (I've only taken a cursory look at most of the more recent stuff), the same can't be said of the pro-homeopathy types. No, wait, I think User:Smith Jones was interested in achieving a reasonable consensus, if memory serves. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How does any of this have to do with a cause that I should be topic banned? Do you have a specific complaint with respect to my edits and will you provide diffs? —Whig (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs if considering a topic ban. Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with Wndl42, who apparently believes that disagreeing with him is automatically a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kww (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the consequence of deciding that WP:CIVIL is more important than any other policy on WP. As you sow, so you shall reap.--Filll (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi and JoshuaZ, if you want to topic ban them, my understanding is that you don't require any further community consensus, because the articles are under probation, and the editors in question have been notified. You probably would have to add your names to the list of admins here though. Addhoc (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic banned for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a friend of Anthon's and he mentioned this at my Talk. I totally disagree with him about the content issues (particularly, a central precept of homeopathy, dilution to zero percent, is definitely bad science. It's simplistic, however, to dismiss all homeopathy as currently practiced as mere fraud). However, it's important to me that we dispute ethically, even when we are in the right, and my experience (unsucessfully attempting to mediate some of the dispute at some of the contentious pages, e.g. Quackwatch) has been that the "pro-science" camp, perhaps out of frustration from experience longer than mine, is often distinctly uncivil. That is, I answer the above complaint "[t]his is a consequence of deciding that WPCIVIL is more important than [...Undue Weight]": CIVIL would not be such a problem if the pro-science camp could be more civil. For example, right here: "Sorry, I guess you do not understand that you have won and are therefore correct in all respects and are free to change NPOV policy as you would like and any articles as you see fit.--Filll (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" (from the NPOV talk). I don't mind sarcasm, myself, but these reactions don't propel consensus. I don't doubt that Anthon has been pig-headed about some things, but his obstinacy is overwhelmed by the relentless incivility (such as calling him an SPA, which is worse than simplistic). Anthon may lean to PoV pushing, but the "pro-science" group pushes back quite hard, and relentlessly. To which I can attest, because they regard my attempts to seek consensus (unwelcome by either side, mostly) as hostile. Both sides stubbornly resist me, but to my great annoyance, the pro-science side is frequently uncivil. There is definitely more heat than light in this. Pete St.John (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not being sarcastic. When I have explained NPOV repeatedly and my explanations are rejected, I have very little choice except to escalate, which is uncivil, or to give up. Rather than take the uncivil choice, I gave up. What is wrong with surrendering?--Filll (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You said Although the "in proportion" phrase gives us the right to make it 98% or more critical of homeopathy, I think that makes for a less useful article. You think because I don't agree with you farout interpretation of NPOV that I should be banned? What is going on here? Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the above. I definitely favour continuing to take action against uncivil editors and, frankly, those seem to be more commonly found on the pro-science side than on the pro-homeopathy side. I don't think most of the pro-science editors even object to enforcement of WP:CIVIL. The concern is that people are being banned for incivility, while the friendly, good faith POV pushers (who are also found on both sides) get mostly a free ride. We're doing a good job of enforcing one Wikipedia policy, but a piss-poor job of enforcing the other. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for that is extremely simple. 99% of people who care about pseudoscience, are True Believers. Which usually leaves the defenders of NPOV in the unenviable position of explaining policy to a never-ending succession of new (and often "new") users; couple with that the fact that the most determined proponents of [pseudoscience have learned to game the system by never-ending querulousness and you have a recipe for meltdown, eading to situations like the present hoeopathy problem where the article is repeatedly hijacked by people who apparently believe that concentrations of less than one molecule per bottle of a product somehow have an effect, an extraordinary claim if ever one were made. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy is completely correct. That is the reason we have a mess. And recently I have had people lecturing me about how 20% constitutes a majority, and something practiced by 2% of the people does not constitute a FRINGE practice etc. Oh well. We cannot do a thing about it because it would be unfair to tell someone that 20% does not constitute a majority..--Filll (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not accurate. —Whig (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider that this AN/I was sparked by a discussion yesterday on the NPOV page regarding the interpretation of NPOV in minority topics. Anthon01 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A root part of the problem here is WP:COI, so maybe this should be taken up at the WP:COI noticeboard, Several of these editors are identified as professional homeopaths and are viewing this as an opportunity to promote their profession and whitewash any mainstream views or negative views of their profession. Now Peter Morrell is a world famous homeopath but is quite able to accommodate the rules such as NPOV and RS of WP. Others are less able to, and so their WP:COIs start to interfere with their editing of these articles.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:NPOV was posed by Anthon01 "in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group", and quickly seemed to turn into a pile-on by pro homeopathy editors, accusing others of being anti-homeopathy and discussing Filll's reaction rather than focussing on the topic. It does look like forum shopping, trying to get outside support for disproportionately small representation of the mainstream medical view on the homeopathy article. There does seem to be an idea that NPOV can be treated in isolation, where as I see it the answer is in an integrated view of the relevant policies and guidance. If that can be clarified in principle it might help, but that requires restarting the NPOV discussion and avoiding getting into excess detail like the claimed percentage of Indians using homeopathy. Either way, the issue is going to have to be sorted out on the talk pages of the relevant articles, and that's a wearying process as has been said above. .. dave souza, talk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a RS/N that helps editors flesh out RS. Like RS/N, my reason for asking the question at WT:NPOV was to get a more informed opinion besides the 60/40 formula proposed by some editors, including Filll. The use of word counts and percentages to reflect NPOV, although workable as a framework upon which development can proceed, seem too simplistic a method and may not effectively reflect NPOV, WP:STYLE, WP:LEAD and other guides and policies. Consider that in some cases one sentence can balance 10 others. I perhaps mistakenly expected expert feedback by editors not involved in homeopathy pages on the WT:NPOV talk page. On the Homeopathy talk page, Filll, has recently, on several occasions claimed to be an authority on NPOV. He would like me to accept his explanation of NPOV. Unfortunately, with the caveat that I might be misinterpreting his statements, he has made statements in the past that make me question his neutrality. Anthon01 (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All suggestions made in response to questions from Anthon01 and other prohomeopathy editors, most of whom are SPAs, about what NPOV policy means, were summarily rejected by the pro-homeopathy editors. The pro-homeopathy editors seem to be sure they know better than experienced mainstream editors what NPOV means, what FRINGE means, what UNDUE means and so on. So I guess the question is now in their court; they have to tell us what NPOV means according to them, or at least propose some meaning of NPOV, because after 6 months of trying to explain, I and most of my fellow editors are basically repeating ourselves over and over, and all of our suggestions are being dismissed, often with extreme prejudice. So, I challenge any and all pro-homeopathy editors, why not write a document describing what you believe NPOV is, or what the policy means, that you feel would meet your needs, beliefs and biases, and present it? It is easy to just say no no no to everyone else, but why not present your own ideas and defend them? The ball is in your court.--Filll (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the above, I think there is another big problem in Talk:Homeopathy. It would not be appropriate to insert it here, but I will mention here that I have created a page on the issue HERE.

Feedback there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And so it goes round in circles, descending in a tight spiral into cloacae overflowing with the fecal detritus of the benighted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Could this be because NPOV is a science and IGNORE is an art? And editing Wikipedia as much as sientific must also be an art. Art and science contradict each other same like NPOV and IGNORE do. It is human nature and it creats friction. So pseudo-science supporters need to convince science supporters that the psuedo-science is science and science supporters need to defend science. Same like Galileo had to convience the reluctant Church that the earth is round not flat. If both sides understand what this is about and not go on Witch hunts and persicution of the other side for upholding their believes we will come to harmony not distruction. So question each other believes and motives but learn to step back and give each other room to grow in knowledge. Igor Berger (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest at DRV

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29. User Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) prematurely closed a DRV over an MFD that she also closed (that being Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Now, this is highly irregular, and her involvement in the initial MFD should have kept her from closing the DRV as well. The whole point of DRV is to bring in additional, uninvolved editors to review the situation, and Kim Bruning is essentially refusing to allow others to comment on this. Now, I have voted in both the original MFD and in teh subsequent DRV, so I will not change this, but could an uninvolved admin please look this over perhaps reopen the DRV, since it was closed by someone who was involved in the initial DRV? While it may not have been her intention, by closing the DRV, Kim Bruning looks to be attempting to prevent discussion for some reason. I have no idea why, but this entire sequence is highly unusual. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The original MFD was contrary to process. You're not really supposed to have MFD's on policy or policy proposals. I closed the original MFD and to be nice I also marked the proposal as rejected, as a kind of compromise. Perhaps I should not have done so, and merely sanctioned the person who made the MFD listing.

At any rate, the person who had made the listing then went to DRV. DRV allows one to endorse, relist, or overturn an earlier deletion discussion. In the case of this MFD, relisting would be inappropriate (original listing was contrary to policy), endorsing would keep the target page rejected, and it seems rather unlikely that there would be a consensus to overturn. So I closed the DRV, and warned the person making the listing to please reread wikipeida deletion policy carefully.

As the page has already been rejected, there's really very little left to do here. ^^;;

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the closure was incorrectly done and should be reversed. I also note that Kim has been unreceptive to a fairly clear consensus that the review closure was out of process. There is an issue of making an end-run around WP:AFD. Ronnotel (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not entirely sure how an end-run around AFD could have been made, did you mean MFD? I have been applying the MFD rules in a fairly gentle fashion, as a fairly neutral participant. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant AFD. The intent of the authors appears to be promotion of a fringe idea - Delegable Proxy. Since that page seems destined for the ash heap, I believe they see the essay on the same topic as a way to avoid AFD. That MFD policy doesn't recognize this possibility is a major loophole. Any kind of claptrap - personal attacks, hate language, spam, could be dressed up as an essay and, by your reasoning, be immune from deletion. Ronnotel (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory. However, wasn't Delegable proxy originally written by different authors than the people making the policy proposal? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I created the article as Liquid democracy, which is a name I did not invent, as one of my first edits on Wikipedia, basically as a stub, in 2005. I was blissfully unaware at the time of WP:COI. However, I did not since edit that article, and many editors did come along and add material to it. User:Sarsaparilla, later becoming User:Ron Duvall and then User:Absidy, (obviously without intention to conceal or deceive, given the edit histories, and, in fact, explicit connections made, such as with the account creation for Absidy, -- some here seem to have great difficulty with WP:AGF) quite recently expanded it, and it is beyond me why he used, shall we say, "nonstandard sourcing," though I could speculate. Yes, he was interested, as was (and am) I, in trying out delegable proxy here, not as a voting method -- DP for voting is of little interest to me, though some election experts consider it an ideal voting method -- but rather as a method for creating efficient communications networks, capable of efficiently *creating* consensus -- real and measurable consensus -- on a large scale. This is not the place to debate DP, but the point is that the proposer was sincere, and believed that this would either help Wikipedia or would be harmless, and I have the same position. The vehemence of the opposition shocked him, indeed, it shocked him right off Wikipedia. He's young, and did not expect this. I'm twice his age and knew it was possible. The proposal is not a Rule 0 violation, but it implies some Rule 0 violations, particularly when not understood. I would not have proposed it at this time. But I'm not God. User:Kim Bruning is. I'm probably the world's foremost student of delegable proxy, though James Armytage-Green gets more google hits. There have been many other independent inventions of it, around the world, but my own particular vision is DP within what might be called consensus democracies, and, while I'm politically progressive, this idea has attracted quite a few libertarians and anarchists. It is almost as if it was designed for Wikipedia, but I'm not holding my breath. What was proposed here was only the creation of proxy files by users who cared to do it, and a central proxy table where these would be transcluded, and the proposal was explicit that it wasn't for voting, and that proxies did not represent clients, but might be considered by some to reflect a projection of how their clients might vote. If that was found, by experience, to be reasonable. No policy change was proposed, and most of what was feared about the proposal would be policy violation, easily detected and addressed. Go figure.--Abd (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can't really say I am being unreceptive: See [91] for a typical response. I do tend to insist on not acting hastily, however. I hope that that's ok.--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is checkuser-proven sock-puppetry as work, which is why the whole affair has become somewhat tainted. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. But how can we even determine the proper course of action if the debate is closed before it begins? I apologize for calling you unresponsive and I accept that you are acting with good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The ABF is blatant. Stop it, Ronnotel. There is now what might be called sock puppetry, caused by the block of Absidy, who has essentially been made into an outlaw by block policy violations, and who, contrary to my personal recommendations and requests, continues to post (not disruptively, by the way, except that it does cause some fuss due to the very determined efforts to detect his posts quickly, something that was never done with even a determined and disruptive puppet master as James Salsman), but prior to that, there were no violations of WP:SOCK. Look, I've seen a certain administrator be extraordinarily blase about real sock puppets and IP editors massively reverting an article, while here, someone who isn't editing abusively, who isn't running a puppet theater, but who, for various reasons -- pretty stupid if deliberate attempts to deceive, and he's not stupid -- dropped accounts and continued under a new name, twice in the relevant period. Only one of these shifts was not accompanied by an explicit notice of continuing identity, which did not stop checkuser requests being filed to confirm what was already openly -- and promptly -- admitted. The sock puppetry charges appear to be designed to claim bad faith in the proposal, thus adding fuel to a "disruption" charge, thus justifying deletion rather than mere rejection. The implied argument would go, if these were sock puppets, they must be concealing the puppet master, who doesn't want to be caught for intentional disruption. But that's not what happened here. There was no puppet master, because there was never an account used again after being abandoned. Check the history. In further process, which is likely to ensue, diffs and all the full panalopy of evidence will be provided, but, one step at a time. I have not even filed warnings on the Talk pages of involved administrators yet, requesting rectification of improper actions, except for one, the indef block of Absidy for what should at most have been a 24 hour block. First offense. No prior problems at all for well over two years of very active editing (under the three names above plus another which can be found with little effort -- but I'm not going to give the name directly. Many here know it, but when a user abandons an account, it's offensive to expose it unless there is abuse involved. Which there was not, period.--Abd (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, Kim we do need to remind you that admins should not be closing DRVs for XFDs that they also closed. One of the purposes of DRV is to bring an end to discussion of deleted closures, and that purpose is defeated when someone closes a review of their own work. Heck, we even prefer that if the series is XFD1, XFD2, ... XFD(N-1), XFD(N), DRV, any admin that closed any of XFD1 to XFDN shouldn't close the DRV. If something is terribly out of whack, give one of the DRV regular closers a nudge. Admittedly, we've mostly been busy IRL or distracted lately, or we wouldn't have let closures get to be 6 days overdue... though we are currently down to 4 days overdue... so we might actually need a nudge. GRBerry 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec some more) Be glad to. (nudge) Please review my closure of the DRV! Also check my talk page as some people have left messages there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3, reply to Kim's first statement) Actually, the point is that reasonable editors reading and interpreting the MFD criteria disagreed that the MFD was contrary to process. Editors clearly felt that the page was eligible for MFD and felt that your initial premature closure of it was wrong. Now, the initial closure of the MFD was not a big issue, since Deletion Review exists to allow further scrutiny of that closure when reasonable editors disagree with it. The closure of the Deletion Review by the same person that closed the MFD is problematic, since it is essentially YOU closing off discussion of your own actions. A conclusion has NOT already been reached on how to handle the page, as you note above. A discussion was underway at MFD to decide how to handle it, you closed that. A deletion review was started, and you closed that. How can anyone reach any conclusion on the discussion if you refuse to allow discussion to continue, based upon your singular interpretation of the MFD guidelines, where other editors have a different and reasonable interpretation of said guidelines... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, once such a page is deleted, it's just gone, hence you can't do that for proposals, right? I think some people have been trying to go for a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the MFD rules (hey, I helped write 'em, I'm pretty sure we didn't mean for proposals to be deleted, but this doesn't stop people from trying. ;-) ). Anyway, most of the time, the correct action is to tell people off. The remaining situations typically end up with the listed page being rejected, which it did here. I'm slightly less handy with deletion review, so I've just asked a DRV regular to review my approach to the DRV process. (see above) Will that do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously inappropriate for a whole host of reasons. I had no notion that Kim Bruning was not an admin - non-admin closes can be reverted by any admin to begin with. Kim, there is overwhelming agreement that the proposal is inherently disruptive and disruptive proposals can be deleted. I have no idea why you are making an issue of this or why you feel it is appropriate to "warn" me, but your conduct here leaves something to be desired. I'm reopening the DRV as an inappropriate non-admin close and I would encourage any uninvolved admin reading this to consider speedy overturning and reopening the MFD. --B (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim is a former admin who retired voluntarily in 2005. (Wikipedia:Former administrators#Other #11) As far as I know (it was before my time) there was no controversy. So she can ask for the mop back at any time, and in XfD closings I feel she should be treated as an admin - except that she obviously can't push the delete button unless she asks for it back first. GRBerry 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

B: Well, if your interpretation of the MFD guidelines were to be correct, it would be permissible to list even WP:NPOV on MFD at any time. That's obviously not quite correct!

Perhaps we can clarify the MFD rules. Do you at least understand why it is such a bad idea to delete policy proposals?

In other news, why are you attempting to delete the page in the first place? You may have provided reasoning other than "policy", but I haven't quite seen it yet? I'm quite willing to accede to WP:WIARM based reasoning. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you provide evidence that WP:NPOV was created by a farm of sock puppets looking to cause trouble or make a WP:POINT, then I would say yes, it could be deleted. --B (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't ask me things like that, you just might get an answer ;-). NPOV is probably rather more dubious. It was created by a meat-puppet of an editor who had been paid to create such pages in the first place (so a meat-puppet of a meat-puppet). Said editor has since left wikipedia in not-so-good-standing. The rule has certainly caused most of the conflict on wikipedia, so we could assume bad faith and say it was intended to be disruptive.

Getting back on topic, it has since been brought to the attention of the community that said "sock farm" possibly was not in such bad faith as you'd initially assume, at which point any perceived MFD loopholes (either way) are rather much cut off. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've read a bunch, and can now clearly comment as a DRV regular closer on the merits of the specific case. As I said above, one of the purposes of DRV is to review disputed closings, allowing those in disagreement to be heard but still eventually reaching cloture absent a decision that the original closure was incorrect. To allow those in disagreement to believe that they have been heard and fairly judged, it is necessary that the DRV closer not only be unbiased, but also to be seen as unbiased. So it is just wrong for someone to close a DRV of one of their own XfD closes (or speedy deletions).
• Reviewing Kim's talk page, I see five people who had already expressed concern with the close prior to B's notice of taking it to DRV. In theory, he should have become a sixth voice asking Kim to revise/explain the close, gotten rejected by her, and then taken it to DRV. But, since it was reasonably clear that she had already explained the close and wasn't going to be revising it, it wasn't terribly wrong to skip the first two pointless steps and just take the discussion to DRV. Thus I don't think the warning issued to B was appropriate.
• That half a dozen editors were concerned with her close meant that the DRV should have run. Kim, will you undo that closure and let the DRV run or will you let me do so? I want explicit clearance here... because I intend to offer an opinion in it if reopened. That opinion is that we should in the end do is relist the MFD with clear instructions to the participants to distinguish between whether this is so inherently disruptive that an unchanging archive is inappropriate (thus delete) and non-viable proposal that should be marked as rejected and become unchanging thereafter. GRBerry 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and proceed as you see fit at DRV. On the MFD side of things; as there is (obviously) no exception for disruptive listings (even DRV sanctioned) on MFD, I guess the correct action in this case for any further MFD listings without at least clear WP:WIARM reasoning is now to block the lister. :-/ I hope people won't decide to place an admin in such an undesirable position. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) MFD listings of project namespace pages cost you way too much time if you try to both follow procedure and be nice about it. I recommend that the future procedure be to close the mfd and block the nominator immediately.

WP:MFD#Prerequisites says, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive ... it can be nominated for deletion." How do you get from that to a decision that listing a disruptive proposal for deletion is cause for blocking? --B (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the risk you run for trying to use that rule that way. it's really only meant for fairly obviously disruptive stuff, not for serious proposals that people happen to have a strong dislike for. If anyone comes along at any time and says "wait a minute, that proposal wasn't actually disruptive", you're SOL, you see. Editors in good standing have actually said so, and that's where we are right now. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A finding of "disruptiveness" is not something that a single person can veto. The consensus view is that the proposal is disruptive and that it should be deleted and a minority viewpoint that it is not disruptive doesn't change that. --B (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a minority viewpoint at all, then there is no consensus in the strict sense (at best there's a rough consensus). In such a situation, you want to be very careful, as things may yet turn around. As a very recent example: we had a "consensus minus one" to keep the page as rejected, after all. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim, thanks for allowing the DRV to run. We'll see what the community thinks of the decision you made, and at the least those who disagree will believe that they have had a fair chance to be heard. GRBerry 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's crazy, but you may well know better than I do. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can a Deletion Review decide to delete an article that was not deleted by prior process? Suppose this were an article, an AfD, instead of an MfD. If an AfD is closed as, say, no consensus, or keep, in spite of most editors voting for Delete, because the closer does what is suggested by WP:NOTAVOTE and considers that the arguments don't support deletion, is DRV the remedy? Has anyone ever imagined so? Why would MfD be any different? Deletion Review is for reviews of deletions! Not reviews of "deletion debates." Is there a tag for articles that says "This article was kept in an AfD that was closed as Keep, but you should now go to DRV and participate if you want the proposal not deleted? Just how much complex procedure do these editors want to create? Simple. If an MfD was closed to keep, improperly, there is an obvious, clear, and in-process remedy, another nomination. Is there ongoing harm from the article's presence? The only disruption here is being caused by concerted efforts to delete the proposal! Is there any evidence presented yet for ongoing disruption other than that? I added some comments to the Talk page. If there is any disruptive aspect to them, it would not be related to the presence of WP:PRX. Rather, it would be that I've clearly expressed intention to pursue dispute resolution, by the book, carefully, and non-disruptively. Which takes time, and which starts with simple discussion among editors. The time is not ripe, as far as I'm concerned, for the next step up that ladder. But if anyone wants to accelerate things, I'd certainly be responsive. --Abd (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect regarding the purpose of DRV. To quote from it's second paragraph, "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." As I highlighted in italics, DRV can most certainly be used when a deletion debate results in keep and people believe that is incorrect. DRV is usually preferred over repetitive nominations. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Miamiboyzinhere

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

The user above has behaved in a most unseemly manner over the past few weeks, and it is my belief that the time has come to discuss the manner of a potential community ban. Here is a rough chronology of events:

• • Against consensus, and without discussion, he began to edit numerous articles relating to Orlando, Florida area attractions, changing the location of said attractions from "Near Orlando" or "In the Orlando Area" to the specific municipality, and often in doing so cleansing the name "Orlando" from the article entirely. While technically correct, it has been determined by consensus of other editors that the specific municipality name is less helpful to the reader than the term "near Orlando". Even compromises, such as including the specific name of the municipality alongside "near Orlando" have been attempted, but he continuously ignores even such compromises and pushes his version of the articles to the point of WP:OWNership.
  • He was blocked for disruption 1 week ago, and rather than ride out the block, he began to edit via rapidly changing IP address, creating a nightmarish situation for admins, as first a "Whack-a-mole" series of blocks chased him around for several days, and ultimately resulting in the mass semi-protection of all of the relevent articles (see two prior threads at ANI above). Some of these sock-IPs and atleast one suspected sockpuppet account, can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere and at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Miamiboyzinhere.
  • Immediately upon release of his block, he resumed the same problematic edits as the first blocks, and engaged in harassment of another user, but continuously refusing to allow that user to archive their talk page as they saw fit. He reverted that users talk page 18 times (18RR anyone) in less than 20 minutes, leading to his most recent block, a 2 week block.

Based upon these behaviors, I propose a partial community ban upon the editing of User:Miamiboyzinhere subject to the following terms.

1. Upon release of his block, User:Miamiboyzinhere is banned from editing any articles related to Orlando, Florida or any of the amusement parks or attractions from that area.
2. Upon release of his block, User:Miamiboyzinhere is banned from reverting any talk page of any other user
3. User:Miamiboyzinhere is restricted to using a single account to edit

How does this sound to everyone? Yeah or nea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen him misbehaving in my patrol, and if his behavior is typical, then yes, a ban would be best. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, the same with Jubube. I have seen this user popup during patrols..though I am never fast enough to get him. His behavior has shown he deserves a ban.I am hoping that non-admin have a voice here. Rgoodermote  01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Non-admin here. Sounds good to me; I've yet to see much evidence that this person plans to make any meaningful contributions or will respect the community. I just wonder what admin tools will prevent future edits from new IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would definitely support this ban as detailed above. This user is just causing too much trouble. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable. This user is just being too disruptive. Tiptoety ^talk 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, but pertains to user..some one needs to confirm what I am seeing take a look at the suspected socks of the user here, then look at the Ws. Rgoodermote  02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The double-yous? I don't follow? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is suspected of using WP:ANI as a sockpuppet. It was removed. Rgoodermote  02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I seen the IP's during patrol. And Disney World Resort in Orlando category was changed from amusement parks in Orlando to amusement parks Florida. This is eventhough the offial Websites states Orlando in its title. This user definetly has something against Orlando. Igor Berger (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concur, upon the evidence given. Has Jayron (or anyone) considered what sanctions would be applicable to the conditions being violated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Servant Saber - disruptive editing and trolling

If you check this user's contributions, you can see that he is a long-time vandal. He's always involved in some kind of edit war, and he's been blocked before for constantly breaking the 3RR rule. When other editors revert his disruptions, he calls them vandals, sock puppets, and trolls while reverting them again. When he notices that his trolling is failing due to the persistance of the vigilant editors, he starts stalking them and even reverting their own talk pages after the users that own them perform an edit.

That said, the report he made above should be disregarded.

If you decide not to block him, I implore you that you at least keep a close watch on him, as he is likely not to stop. Thanks. Panelgets (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. 200.67.71.119, 67.149.157.177, 213.180.164.121, and 87.105.143.103 have all been making similar edits and around similar pages as the OP. As well, they're all pestering Servant Saber. The Panelgets user has made various questionable edits such as [92] and [93]. This is just WP:HA; I've blocked Panelgets and would appreciate if someone can review the block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The indef block of Panelgets is unfortunate (especially seeing as it probably wouldn't have happened yet if he hadn't made this post), but after reviewing his contributions they do mostly seem questionable. That said, I'm not willing to make the final call and decline the unblock request on his talkpage. Servant Saber also needs an eye keeping on him, after being blocked twice for edit warring – and some of the edit summaries are a little unnecessary. See [94] and [95]. —αlεx•mullεr 12:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You gotta be shitting me. The only reason why I was blocked twice was because noone else realized that those whose edits I was reverting were vandals. Now both are indefblocked, amidst other reasons for harassment and sockpuppetry. I'm sorry but there is no way that I can admit being at fault here. --Saber^Excalibur! 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request has been denied. Rudget. 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And denied again. Panelgets page has been protected due to misuse of unblock requests, and general trolling. seicer | talk | contribs 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MonoBot

Resolved

 – Bot should be able to handle such cases, but that's been addressed at bot's RFA. No more administrative action required now. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MonoBot (talk · contribs) is going crazy changing spaces in wikilinks to underscores, seemingly not approved as a bot (at least, it's changes aren't marked b), and not responding to requests on its talk page that it stop. I suggest that it be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked it for 24 hours until it's owner can sort it out; meanwhile, it seems to have been approved, but may be malfunctioning, which would explain the faulty edit summary. It has only been approved for 60 edits anyway, but this needs feeding back. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked its master to look at this behaviour. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the notes left here. I should make a page to turn it off :| . The bot is not malfunctioning. You can see in the diff David gave, the person added {{NowCommons|month=February|day=25|year=2008|1=Image:Electrical_Experimenter_Aug_1916.jpg|2=no}} to the image . The bot matched the Image:Electrical_Experimenter_Aug_1916.jpg and replaced Image:Electrical Experimenter Aug 1916.jpg It was nothing on the bot's end... the user just didn't need to add the underscores. Mønobi 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst that may well be the case, the bot ought not to slavishly follow the presence of the underscores. Normalisation of the image names should be carried out. Mayalld (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

*Thanks, user-malfunction as usual. Doh! I'll unblock for its next run. Already done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When a bot is being tested, it shouldn't be surprising that some edits may have problems. It doesn't seem like a good idea to block a bot during the testing phase (assuming it's working within testing guidelines). This particular bot was flagged, by the way. Gimmetrow 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very difficult to gauge whether a bot is, in fact, working within testing guidelines, during the testing phase. You don't know what it's meant to be doing, and whether what it's actually doing is within its parameters. For all I know, it could have been causing vast amounts of collateral damage, being essentially an automated process. As with all blockings, I blocked as a preventative measure until the situation could be resolved, and since this bot did not have a huge STOP button on its page, I blocked and would do the same again. Once I had ascertained that the bot was (a) approved (b) for testing (c) for a limited number of edits only, I evaluated that damage would be minimal and was prepared to unblock. I have seen the damage that rm -rf *.* can cause when I was working at Lucent, so I hope you'll forgive my caution. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Underscores and spaces are hardly the end of the world, though. Gimmetrow 23:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

True, if that's all that's being affected. It's a brave person, however, who claims to understand the epiphenomenology of software processes. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

219.77.171.224 (talk · contribs) has attacked me both on the talk page of Talk:List of McMaster University people and in an edit summary for List of McMaster University people. GreenJoe 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not much to do. Give him escalated warnings if he continues, and then report to AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet User:Runreston still active

An earlier checkuser (see here) definitively confirmed that User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 were sockpuppets of User:Racepacket, resulting in a permanent block of Xcstar. Shortly after the ban, User:Runreston was created by Racepacket, following the same path as Xcstar and the most recent sockpuppet check confirmed that Runreston was a likely sockpuppet of Racepacket. Given that Runreston is a confirmed sockpuppet, what is required to implement appropriate long-term blocks on both the sockpuppet and the puppetmaster User:Racepacket who created his newest sockpuppet almost immediately after the previous block. As admin JzG confirmed the "likely" status for the latest sockpuppet (see here), all that is necessary is to impose the appropriate block. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Runreston was blocked indef on 27 Feb by JzG and has not edited since then Xcstar is still indef blocked. The IP has reactivated so I blocked him one week (he had a prior 24 hour block). — Rlevse • Talk • 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ce1988 petty vandalism

Resolved

 – indef'd as vandal only

User:Ce1988 has been vandalizing Port Arthur massacre (Australia), and I've had to make 4 reverts to it. I believe my reverts do not violate WP:3RR, as they all apply to the "obvious vandalism" exception, as seen here: [96] [97] [98] [99]

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if someone could at least temporarily block this vandal. Blue Mirage (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for WP:AIV. Tiptoety ^talk 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

indef blocked as vandal only acct. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother personal attacks and edit warring on IP address

Resolved

• Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JustaHulk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.225.175.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP address appeared tonight and edit warred on Shawn Lonsdale. Cirt reported to AIV, where the IP disclosed that it was actually Justanother.[100] Because that connection meant the issue was no longer simple vandalism, the matter could not be resolved at that board. Also made personal attack Are you on drugs, Cirt?[101] The Shawn Lonsdale article is under probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS where Justanother was a named party. Justanother confirms his awareness of that probation in this edit.[102]

Justanother has previous blocks for disruption, edit warring, and personal attacks and has minimal productive contributions. He has been singling out Cirt for abuse for some time. See this thread from Jimbo's talk page in January where he compares Cirt to a crack whore.[103] This is intolerable, and for some unknown reason he isn't getting blocked for it. Cirt has written 7 featured articles, 7 featured portals, 1 featured topic, 18 good articles, and 17 DYKs. I am very concerned about the effect of gross unaddressed harassment on a superb content contributor's morale. Please intervene with the tools. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DIFF, this statement by Justanother (talk · contribs) is false. I am very offended and frustrated by these attacks. Cirt (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Justanother for one week and the IP for 31 hours. Feel free to review it ... Blueboy96 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the swift action. Durova^Charge! 05:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Blueboy96. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this?

I just recently blocked User talk:HazelAardvark and User talk:Mister Aardvark. These users both did this edit, which I know I have seen before but I just cant remember. Does someone know the sock puppeteer, and if so could you tag it accordingly? Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Blu Aardvark. Just look at the usual targets (plus Krimpet - dunno why she's a target now) - Alison ^❤ 08:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought Blu Aardvark had indicated that he was interested in civility. Are you sure this is really him? Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Quack quack. MER-C 10:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John celona (talk · contribs)

User Celona (who has been discussed on this board before) is once again mounting an attack campaign. He is once again editing in a belligerent and disruptive manner: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:American_criminals&diff=prev&oldid=195223525 He is an admitted holocaust denier, and has tended to make negative edits to subjects of jewish descent. He continues to break the peace on the Peter Yarrow page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=195220237 --Jkp212 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the Jew-spotting works the other way with this editor. Where there's an article about a gay democrat, 2 other categories the editor tends to revile, he sometimes inserts the irrelevant fact that the subject is Jewish. For a recent example, see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cicilline&diff=prev&oldid=194673987 David in DC (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Users jkp212 and David in DC have tried (quite unsuccsesfully) to have me barred in the past. They accuse me of being "an admitted holocaust denier" which is not true. Like everyone else I make comments-some negative, some positive. Some are on articles of Jews, the vast majority are not. My mother is a French Jew who survived World war II. All of this serves to obscure the reason these 2 users seek to have me banned; they want to censor the well verified and sourced fact that one of their heroes is an admiited child molestor who served three months in prison for that crime. These facts were placed on the article well over 3 years ago (by another user) and were continually left on by dozens and dozens of editors through scores and scores of edits until the recent attempts at censorship by these 2 users. Tommorow afternoon I will attempt to trace the 3 year history of this article's consensus and the bold attempts of these 2 users to impose their will, without notice to any of the previous editors, on this article. John celona (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If he claims to not be a holocaust denier, then perhaps user Celona can explain this edit, where he said: "The final solution is a hoax". --Jkp212 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained it before-some user threatened me with criminal prosecution because they found uncomfortable the facts I posted regarding my elderly Jewish mother's life in WW III Paris. My sardonic reply to that threat was to throw his threat back in his face. None of this, which happened a year ago, has the slightest thing to do with you and David in DC's attempt to have me banned so that you can censor the verifiabaly sourced information that one of your heroes spent 3 months in prison for [redacted]]; information which has continiously been on the article (and put there by another user-not me) for over THREE YEARS through dozens and dozens of editors and scores and scores of edits. John celona (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm redacting the comment above, and I redacted it in the other talk page per BLP. There's absolutely no reason why you need to go into graphic detail regarding a crime, and your accounts are grossly embellished with inaccurate prurient detail that is not supported by the sources. That's a behavior issue, not a content dispute.Wikidemo (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are there diffs here to describe a problem that requires administrator intervention? It sounds like a content dispute, one which could benefit from dispute resolution but not necessarily admin intervention. Avruch ^T 02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct. John celona (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikidemo's redactions here and on the Criminal category page speak to a behavior problem that requires administrative intervention. So does a review of the editor in question's whole history of edits.David in DC (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I can only be grateful for an edit conflict and Avruch's edit for the absence of my fully-considered comments here. My patience is thin at best, and at present is less than wafer thin. Let's just say my conduct microscope is fully-focussed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if posting unverified claims of a sex offender conviction on a BLP is the issue... Best to say that right off. From the diff above, it looks like he is adding a category of "American criminal" and changing the "a short sentence" line to a specific "three months." If the claim of the crime (whether pardoned later or not) is sourced, and the length of the sentence is sourced, why should it not be included? That isn't an obvious BLP problem. Avruch ^T 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question, the sources kind of suck but they are there and nothing that Celona is adding is necessarily incorrect (although things like "criminal" categories give me willies). Avruch ^T 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to defend myself for a second here, I don't think Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or The Hill or the New York Times [[104]] are bad sources! John celona (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) You seem to be very objective. If you look at the talk page I think you will see clearly who is telling the truth with verifiable sources-and who isn't. John celona (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The content mentioned here is not much of an issue - definitely not an AN/I issue whether or not a 3-month imprisonment should be described as "short." But the statements he has been making in the edit summaries and talk pages in support of his position are unnecessary, seemingly inaccurate, and disparaging. It is already a hot button issue when the subject is sex crime, so embellishing 38-year-old instances of criminal sexual impropriety with details not supported by the sources is something we should discourage. The sourced facts speak for themselves. Having said this, a warning, revision, or BLP report seems to be more suitable than any administrative remedy at this point. It's really just a case of "you don't have to shout to be heard." If he's truly trolling around here adding disparaging material about Jews, that's another thing entirely, but I don't see any proof of that. Wikidemo (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you would please let me know what facts you think are "seemingly inaccurate" I will try to address them. The only fact I have tried to restore to the article (a fact which has been on the article for over 3 years and dozens of editors) are that Yarrow served 3 months in prison. This is sourced by the New York Times, amongst many others. [[105]]. This is the "only" fact I have restored to the article and it is a fact which has been on the article continiously for more than 3 years and dozens of editors and edits. John celona (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the general reference. If I'm not mistaken, the reference I saw for the conviction claim was from the Jewish Baltimore Times, or Baltimore Jewish Times, something like that. It didn't look like a terribly professional source, but if there is a NY Times reference in there it should be cited inline. Avruch ^T 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I will add the New York Times as a source tommorow morning. Hopefully, that will be the end of this.John celona (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The point here is not about the content dispute. That dispute was settled long ago with a consensus of editors. The point here is that the user in question tends to disregard the views of other editors, attack others, take provocative action, and questions others goodwill as a routine. He clearly sees that other editors would like him to discuss the edits, and gain consensus before making these edits, and yet he does so unilaterally. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any edits to the body of the article. I have restored the reversions of a single, well sourced (New York Times, etc.) fact-which has been on the article by consensus for well over 3 years. You continue to revert this consensus version, without informing or seeking imput from any of the dozens of editors who have included this fact in their working on this article over the last 3 years. You have also attacked me, twisted my words like a pretzel and stalked postings I had made months ago, which have nothing to do with this article. John celona (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)