Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Potential trouble brewing with User:Reinis

Hi all. Another user asked me to take a look at User:Reinis, particularly wrt his edits to Creationism and his user talk page. AFAICT he's not broken policy, but he's pushed it to breaking point a couple of times and has definitely gone way past a lot of guidelines on things like civility. Unfortunately my time online is really restricted at the moment, so I was hoping someone more knowledgeable about si=uch things could take a look...? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 00:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look closer. While I admit, reinis could stand to be more civil, this particular foolishness, grew out of User:Yidisheryid's blank indifference to consensus or policy. Several regular editors, with respect to his obvious inexperience, have patiently tried to explain to him why his (initial) edits to the lead wont fly, and it seems that he understands that now. Why now they're edit warring over adding two spaces to the lead, is frankly a mystery to me though. ornis (t) 02:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for that. As I said, I needed someone with a bit more time to have a closer look at what was actually going on. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also had trouble with Reinis. He gave me a 3RR warning after two reverts, then reverted my edit (baiting me to revert again), then later deleted the same text my edit had deleted. (Huh?)Bsharvy 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Confucious here; btw, the above user Bsharvy has followed around several users and harrassed them (probably Reinis too I think) and I wouldn't take his comment seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:45, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted another edit by him on Creation. Looks to be a good editor but has a POV on this subject it seems. Spryde 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And I just reverted you, the edit you reverted to was clearly vandalism. ornis (t) 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. My bad. He reverted the vandal and I misreverted him. Ignore me! Spryde 13:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

attack site question

Having not dealt with them very much in the past, do we block users who create off-wiki attack sites about other editors? I found an instance, where, after I was admittedly less than civil with another user in the last month during a dispute, they created a blog posting in which I am called a jewbag, I am accused of lying about my military service, and my full name is used (Which I'm not worried about because it is no secret on the internet, but if it were someone else who wished to be anonymous, I feel like that would be a problem). It's not just me though, they bash User:David Gerard as well. Criticism is one thing. Insulting comments about one's religion and military service is an attack. What is the process here?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it help or hurt the encyclopedia to block that user? Perhaps that is the root of your question. Personally, I would address that question on a case by case basis. daveh4h 05:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the person to make that decision. I wouldn't be the one to block the user in any case, having had a dispute with them. I'm more thinking along the lines of presenting a case for blocking to a neutral, uninvolved admin. The user has been quite uncivil, and does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works, but I can't say that my own incivility didn't contribute to their raised hackles, so I don't feel comfortable with blocking over that. I think the site hurts Wikipedia, and since it is the editor's personally owned site, by extension they are hurting the encyclopedia. But like I said, I'm too far removed from neutral to make a good decision on that ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some specifics might help. For instance, I just reverted your removal of a link to Making Light, the blog of Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Patrick Nielsen Hayden. Is that the "attack site" that you mean? Because that's been discussed before, and I think David Gerard had a pretty good comment about it, which I will try to locate. Or do you mean some other site? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard's comment is here. His comment applies to several of the threads currently showing on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. A site calling me a jewbag clearly counts as an attack site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard's comment came from May 31. This whole deal came about in the past two weeks. I don't really care about the past content. The current content is an attack site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll doubly note that [[WP:ATTACK}} states (emphasis added)"Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked.[2][3] As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning."

Do you really think that referring to a specific editor as a "jewbag", claiming that I lied about my military service, calling me an idiot, etc....that none of that qualifies as an "attack"? Since when has it been ok to call someone an idiot or a jewbag on Wikipedia? Never as far as I can remember. Akhilleus, I'm going to undo your revert, and ask that we come to an agreement on it here, before you re-add it.

And, as I note, it's not just me. The site owner refers to User:Dmcdevit and User:Alison as "idiot in question", as well as Will BeBack as a "Mendacious Troll". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wellllll, I think that that mainly refers to the posting of a link with the intent of using it to attack someone.... In this case, the link is there because it's the website of the article's subject. --Masamage ♫ 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what happens when the article is still visible as a snippet or archive piece on the top page? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You could wait. The thread will vanish into the archives eventually. Or, you could look again--because the particular epithet you're saying Making Light is calling you doesn't seem to be visible on the front page. (By the way, I didn't see your request not to revert on those pages until after I made my latest reverts, sorry about that.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It pops up every now and then, because at well over 600 comments, apparently people are noticing. Now, when someone googles my name and wikipedia together, the top results are....."FOMG SWATJESTER IS EVIL!" (yes, I know about nofollow). As for the epithet I'm referring to, it's still there. It's been disemvoweled, even, which means that a moderator saw it, but didn't bother to delete it, just left it so that anyone with half a brain could still figure out what it said. Like I said, it may not have been one the last time that the issue came up, but it certainly is now. So....why are we allowing this to remain on Wikipedia?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Insulting comments about people's religion should definitely be a no-no, and deliberate linking to sites that behave like this should be grounds for a block. It is not clear that reference to military service is in the same category, but if its outing a Wikipedian, then aggressive blocking is needed. PalestineRemembered 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the site in question? Your words are utterly at odds with anything someone who had actually seen the site would say. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "jewbag" comment, nor am I seeing anything revealing your full name. All I see on Making Light are some comments disagreeing with your positions on various issues, such as Green Peace, the Vietnam War, etc., all of which they are perfectly entitled to do, and for which it makes no sense to remove a link to the site in the relevant articles. If you can point out specifically where these bad things are written, please do so. It does seem, however, that the best way to deal with this situation is simply to ignore them. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's post #313 in that thread, which has been disemvowelled. That's the way Making Light deals with incivility, rather than deleting the posts. I sometimes wish I could do that on ANI. Anyway, the insult seems to be "jewboy" rather than "jewbag" (still quite offensive either way). But it's pretty clear that the regular posters over there regard the post as trolling and unacceptable behavior, and in one of the latest posts someone theorizes that post #313 was made by someone who's tangled with Swatjester on Wikipedia and decided to insult him in another forum. I think that's plausible. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The forum there makes their distaste exceptionally clear, then turns into a Choose Your Own Adventure story. (no kidding). Although that poster is attacking you, the disemvowelling and reaction make clear the site itself isn't attacking, and discourages such behavior. The authors may be jerks for going after you, but their criticisms are far more legit than the discouraged , censored, attack. ThuranX 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the silliness of the BADSITES pseudo-policy keeps showing itself, as people try to force the delinking of blogs where somebody (not the blogger themselves) made an obnoxious comment. I guess all of Usenet is an attack site too, since people make obnoxious comments there all the time. *Dan T.* 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense whatsoever to delink an external site because some random idiot posted something mean in one of the comments. That basically gives any troll out there blanket license to have any reader participation links removed, including blogs, wikis, YouTube, Flickr, basically any Web 2.0 site, etc. I am increasingly convinced that WP:BADSITES is a nonsense policy. Hell, we shouldn't be allowed to link to Wikipedia, because lord knows all sorts of defamatory content has been posted there! --Cyde Weys 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: SwatJester discovered an anonymous anti-semitic remark in comment #311 of a post on the weblog of Patricia Nielsen Hayden, a writer and science fiction editor. In response, SwatJester wants to delete all references in Wikipedia to that weblog.

If this were wikipedia policy and general practice, an editor could easily remove a link to ANY wiki, news group, forum, or other publicly-editable Web site by arranging for uncivil crticicism of a wikipedian or of wikipedia to appear as an anonymous comment. Of course, the site admins can and probably will delete the comment, but the admin can always raise the issue before the action takes place, and in some cases the Web site needs to follow procedures like Wikipedia's own. MarkBernstein 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Making Light is not an attack site, and further the attack site policy itself is dead as of a while back. Last time this issue came up in connection with Making Light, Jimbo Wales himself interceded to unruffle ruffled feathers. As I said to my friend who just called to intercede on Swatjester's behalf, I am willing to hash out the matter by email or by phone, but lets drop this BADSITES nonsense right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 23:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC) --Pleasantville 23:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and WP:FAC KT extinction event

Could somebody please take a look at the ongoing discussions on these two pages and maybe try and calm things down somehow? The debate on both has taken a vitriolic and aggressive turn and is descending into a series of personal attacks which I feel are simply not helpful nor warranted. Would be good to perhaps get an independent voice to give comment before things escalate and get even sillier. Badgerpatrol 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As the principle other party, I am voluntarily removing myself from the discussion, and disengaging. This is just beyond ridiculous and I do not care enough about this. All I want to do is see the article improved, and it apparently is loaded with errors, which I cannot fix.--Filll 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like uninvolved editors to comment, perhaps try a request for comment? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is warranted. I am unilaterally distancing myself from this error-ridden page. I cannot fix it and I cannot encourage others to do so, apparently. --Filll 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC would be the next logical step, but I don't want to make a big fuss. All I've done is swing by the FAC discussion and make a few comments that I thought were constructive and were certainly well meant...the only purpose of coming here was to get an admin to swing by the page and tell people to maybe calm down a bit...without wanting to sound like a moaning minny I do think I've been subjected to quite a lot of ad hom abuse that's just completely unwarranted. Maybe an RfC is the right path to follow, I'll sleep on it. Badgerpatrol 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Having now considered the RfC option more fully after another few volleys tonight, it seems that an RfC may not be possible- there are multiple users involved and not all of them have been asked by two or more editors to stop, which is a necessity by my reading of WP:RFC. For a flavour of the kind of thing I'm talking about....this , this, this, (especially) this, this, this, this , this, this, these, this, this, this, and this, all of which can be found in context at the two pages referenced above and on the talk pages of the various editors concerned. If anyone could advise whether a user conduct RfC is actually possible, or otherwise suggest a remedy, I would really appreciate the input at this point. Badgerpatrol 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, nor is it uncivil, nor does it not assume good faith. It is a request for help.

This is also none of the above. It isn't even pointed at you. It's a bit sarcastic, sure.

This is more of a personal attack by Badgerpatrol, hardly anything but more sarcasm.

This is undecipherable. Not even sure what Filll was trying to say.

This is a description of how to figure out references. Your implication that every sentence needs sourcing is not common sense. So ConfuciusOrnis should have been more polite? OK, but your comments was uncivil. It got accelerated. Your point is what?

This is nothing more than commentary on a long long long paragraph that was indeed hard to read. You accelerated the uncivil behavior which was accelerated by others. Guilt is equally attributed here.

This is absolutely nothing. Not sure what is your complaint.

He is not involved with your complaint. What's the point?

This is sarcastic.

Anyways, I'm abusing a point. Most of the diffs represent hardly anything at all, and some don't deserve any consideration. I don't get this at all. What is going on with this project? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, most of the diffs above were withdrawn by the author (Filll (talk · contribs)) more than 24 hours before being placed in this incident report. Furthermore Badgerpatrol brought up all the same stuff on WP:WQA at the same time. I have just indicated that the WQA alert should be considered closed. Trying to raised this in multiple forums is not helpful. It fragments the discussion and ferments discord. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted here yesterday evening at 20:34. The response was "take it to RfC". I can't take it to RfC because two or more editors have not attempted to resolve the situation on each of the talk pages. I can't take it to WP:WQA because seemingly it's not appropriate to have both an open AN/I thread and a WP:WQA discussion open simultaneously (is this actually the case? Surely AN/I is not an official step in the dispute resolution process?). The reason frankly that I did not originally post at WP:WQA exclusively was because the first complaint posted was listed as unresolved/stale after being listed since the middle of July. The reason that I then went back to WP:WQA was because there was no meaningful discussion forming here, RfC did not seem to be an option (although my post above was designed to get advice as to whether it still might be) and the incivility (from Orangemarlin) was continuing. I can't help but kind of feel that this situation is being turned back at me when it's really not my fault...or is it my fault? That's pretty much what I'm trying to determine. The reason I include the deleted posts by Filll is because I interpreted his actions in "withdrawing" his comments as passive aggressive, coming as it did 4 minutes after this edit, and since I posted this issue at WP:WQA Filll has left this comment on my talk page which to be honest (without meaning to be rude to anyone) I find kind of creepy and threatening, an aspect of this kerfuffle that has been noted by other uninvolved editors [1]. I'm not sure what else I could have done that I didn't do in terms both of engagement with the editors concerned and in terms of seeking an independent resolution.... Badgerpatrol 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any formal rule that a dispute should not be open in multiple forums. It's more a matter of common sense. It fragments things, and it is going to be taken poorly by the people you are complaining about. It's really annoying to have to repeat a defense of yourself in multiple locations. I made a couple of off-line attempts to reword my closing remark at WQA, before posting it, to try and avoiding making it seem too critical. There seems to be a fair bit of sensitivity here and I don't want to exacerbate that overmuch. In any case, there is now a pointer from there to here, so if your aim is to get more input this is likely to occur.

You did not even mention the fact that Filll (talk · contribs) had withdrawn all those comments, which looks pretty bad to me. Many of them were not actually worth getting upset about. You seem to be wanting to stamp down on him rather than be willing to back off a bit yourself. This is likely to backfire.

I have half a feeling that if you sit on this for 24 hours you might even manage to get a bit more of an appreciation of why a number of people DO seem to think you are a significant contributory cause to the mess. It's not a matter of total blame at all. It's more a case of "dammit, I could have managed that better". Behind the irritation, I think there is probably a reservoir of potential goodwill founded on a common desire to have a good article. The idea is not to find someone to blame, but to look for ways to improve things. I'm not sure which alert should really be open; this one or the WQA one, but I feel strongly that it is disruptive to have several irons in the fire.

One great tactic for dispute resolution is to time out a bit. If this alert here closes, then you may want to try something else. I'd suggest one step at a time, with a pause to reflect between different steps and a consideration at each point of whether there is actually still something to be done or not. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I am passive aggressive? A stalker? Just because I do not want to go through the hassle of an RfC? Hours of wasted time which frankly I do not particulary relish. So Badgerpatrol wants to slam me desperately?

Well I will get involved with an RfC if I am forced. However, I predict that this will not be some march to victory by Badgerpatrol trampling me and will waste a huge amount of time and effort that can be better spent on the article. I might also note, that there are at LEAST three sides to this story. And I have my side, which I have not yet aired, and has at least as much validity as Badgerpatrol's side, and is not particularly complimentary to Badgerpatrol. At all.

Badgerpatrol brought this trouble on himself by being obstreperous, uncooperative and difficult. He started out acting not too different than a troll, which is why he got that unfortunate reception and started off on the wrong foot. He would not explain the reason for his edits, which lead to more bad feelings and lead to him being treated in a harsher way. He refused to explain what he meant when using what appeared to be technical terms which I could not find in any reference. He complained constantly about not having the time necessary to do the editing to fix this purportedly error-ridden article, but seems to have plenty of time to want to start these administrative inquiries.

When I look at the actual edits Badgerpatrol made, I am underwhelmed by most of them so far. I feel like I have been trying to treat Badgerpatrol with kid gloves to encourage him to edit the article, since he is supposedly a Subject Matter Expert, which some reviewers seem to suggest we desperately need to fix this article. So all I want is for him to correct the article. And all he seems to want to do, over and over, is fight. Hmmm...Well if we need an RfC to settle this, then let's have it. But do not think that I will just roll over and let Badgerpatrol stomp me.--Filll 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fill, just a little point here, DC was criticizing Badger not you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OM you are quite correct. I was responding to Badgerproject's post, which he clarified here.--Filll 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine Vandalism (Smd and ILike2BeAnonymous)

Smb and ILike2BeAnonymous have been vandalizing the Bowling for Columbine page, ouright deleting alleged unsourced claims rather than marking them with the , and continuing to deleting them even when I have added sources. Their position is absurd; according to them, not only was Salvador Allenge murdered, no one but the CIA disputes it.Heqwm 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

cf related issue here Rlevse 02:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that your allegation of vandalism is laughable. Good luck with that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm initially provided zero sources for his first edit. [2] His second edit was a grammar correction [3]. Again, no sources were forthcoming. I reverted the changes [4] because, since Heqwm added the claim, I expected (rightly or wrongly) the same user to provide source material for it. And if not a source, at least have the courtesy to add your own citation tag. The same user proceeded to restore the text without a source. [5] User:Aeusoes1 stepped in and reverted Heqwm, noting in the edit summery, "unsourced and probably false information". [6] I proceeded to add sourced information to the page that was unrelated to the earlier squabble. But up pops Heqwm again to add more unsourced commentary. [7] Ugh. I was going to continue on like this through the edit history because I've never been reported before and felt the need to defend myself. But since Heqwm has been handed a short block, I will leave things there (and save you a couple of aspirin). If I've learnt one thing it's that I should provide an edit summary for all of my edits. Sometimes they seem so uncontroversial and obvious I skip a few. But it helps to avoid precisely this kind of trouble. smb 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And the bullshit fest continues. I am aware of no rule that every single edit must contain a source. Is that how you think WP should work? You say that your revert was due to the lack of sources, but your edit summary did not, as you now imply, make any no mention of that, or any other reason. This was a rather rude act, but only in first of many which showed you not to be acting in good faith. Aeusoes1 then cited the source issue, and added the needlessly confrontational and arrogant "probably false". "But up pops Heqwm again to add more unsourced commentary". That's a rather dishonest claim. It was essentially the same claim as before. You were going to continue through the edit history? It just gets worse after that. After my aforementioned edit, ILike2BeAnonymous reverted, putting a personal attack and an unsourced claim of his own in the edit summary. He then performed another revert, calling part of my edit "BS". So I put my claims back in, this time with sources. You deleted them yet again, and yet again gave no reason. So I unreverted. You then reverted AGAIN. So I unreverted again. ILike2BeAnonymous then took over deletion duties. Also, I had claimed that an issue was disputed, and provided a cite showing that a Leftist organization disputed. He dishonestly changed it to say that the CIA disputed it. I corrected it to say that a wide variety of people, includeing a Leftist orgnaization, disputes it. While obscuring who was actually disputing it, he accompanied his edit with the Orwellian edit summary "Let's make it clear just WHO is disputing this here" Then you tagged back in and went reverting despite the fact that I had, by that point, added citations. Through all of this, both of you refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, even though I started a section there.Heqwm 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged my failure to provide an edit summary in the revert. But the edit history doesn't lie. Aeusoes1 did provide the reason (re unsourced commentary) yet you restored the same text regardless. This is not the page to be continuing your battle. The diff's are above. Case closed. smb 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Heqwm has been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule after a warning that he acknowledged. The edits you were reverting were clearly in good faith and not vandalism. ugen64 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can possibly say the edit were in good faith. I have clearly shown how they were not. Furthermore, reversion policy clearly states that reversion should have a good reason. Your claim that I have been " blocked for violating the 3 revert rule after a warning that he acknowledged" is... seriously lacking in veracity. My last edit was on 02:04, 27 August 2007. My response to smb was on 02:19, 27 August 2007. And I did not "acknowledge" the warning; I clearly disputed that 3RR applied. My reversions were combatting what I considered, in Good Faith, to be vandalism. AGF doesn't apply to admins? The four edits cited as "reverts" were: 1:01, 1:51, 1:58, and 2:04.

1:01 I had previously added a claim. Someone asked for a cite. I added the cite. That's not a revert, it's an edit.

1:51 I made a claim, it was deleted with no explanation, and I re-added a similar claim. Arguably a revert.

1:58 I made a claim written in the passive voice with a cite showing that the subject was Leftists. It was "corrected" to falsely state that the CIA was the subject. I fixed it to have Leftists as the subject. Again, an edit, not a revert.

2:04 I reverted a completely unjusitifed revert.Heqwm 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was about to comment here that edits being reverted here: [8] [9] [10] [11] are not what I would call vandalism, per se. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous made reverts at the following times: 23:54, 26 August 2007 01:53, 27 August 2007 02:00, 27 August 2007 03:48, 27 August 2007. Is he going to be blocked?Heqwm 05:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't WP:AN3. Make a "case" there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned, here's my take

1. Heqwm seems to be under the impression that if something lacks sourcing that it should get a cite request. According to WP:V, "any edit lacking a source may be removed." Now, granted, one can instead put a citation request, but in my case I deleted the statement that dictatorial powers and a coup d'état were part of the Iranian constitution because I doubted it very strongly (I didn't touch the Chilean coup statement). I said in the edit summary that this was "probably false" which is neither confrontational nor arrogant as I was expressing my doubt and implying why I didn't put a cite request instead. Sure enough, the statement about the constitution has been dropped.
2. Heqwm, "vandalism" is not editing that you disagree with; removing material that one believes is false, misleading, or otherwise improper is not vandalism, even if you disagree with their judgement. I want you to know this because accusing someone of vandalism is a serious breach of civility and you should not do it lightly. You should also not attempt to have administrative action taken against someone without knowing exactly what you're accusing them of. Remember: whatever they're guilty of here, you are as well.
3. Once Heqwm put this in the talk page, everybody, and I mean everybody should have stopped reverting back and forth. There is a tendency in Wikipedia discussions for editors to make comments justifying a disputed edit and then editing the article accordingly before others get a chance to respond. It gets cyclical when another editor responds in kind and it gets worse when editors use the edit summary box rather than the talk page to carry on the discussion. This is not healthy for Wikipedia, as it violates the spirit of the three revert rule (which is designed to get editors to discuss rather than revert), violates WP:AGF when it is motivated by the assumption that someone won't participate in the discussion if their edit stands as is in the article, and is exactly what has gone on here. If you guys want me to put the difs to prove it, say the word.
4. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the content of Heqwm's edits, and I don't necessarily think anyone should be punished (heck, I know I've done it from time to time) but don't for one second think that sort of inappropriate behavior is justified. It's not. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler, still

Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This guy just will not stop taking shots at me. Here he is implying that anyone who supported me in my RfA is a bigot and homophobe.[12] Here he is baiting and taunting me, and accusing me of being a racist, because I do not choose to assist him in researching his pet POV project.[13][14] These are the same types of constant attacks that FAAFA used to pull off, a user banned for a year by ARBCOM, and who Bmedley has already admitted to editing in proxy for. How long is the community going to continue to assume good faith regarding this probable sockpuppet, when even he does not extend the same good faith to the community, judging by my first diff? I'm not sticking around tonight to bicker over this. I'll check in tomorrow. - Crockspot 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is 100% false. "probable sockpuppet" is a NPA too. He or his friends already made one harrassing RFCU on me that came back empty. I am trying to help Crockspots really. (refactor taunt) My last post I said that I was through with this issue since Crockpots made it so clear that he lacked any interest in what I asked him about documenting racism. I dont even know why hes bringing it up now except I think he is very sore that I was the one who posted those links to what he wrote on that other site. This whole issue is dead now. Except now he wants to re-live it here. Why, I ask. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You two. First, let's not goad with references to quotes brought up at the RFA. Second, Crockspot, if you suspect him to be a sockpuppet, please take the case to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and file a report there with plenty of evidence and a minimum of drama. Third, editing for banned users is explicitly prohibited. There's no diff for that, so that's all I'm saying for now.--Chaser - T 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not editing at all for FAAFA. I was blocked for 48 hours for that and I learned my lesson. He wanted me to add a long protest note after they re-set his 1 year block, and I told him no. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bystander who opposes racism but hasn't edited William Regnery II. I'm opposed to axe murders too but I haven't edited this either. Does this make me a racist with a hatchet? Really Bmedley Sutler, stop it. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Crockspot's edits or former RfA, its not helped by disingenuous "suggestions" such as the ones you made above. Repeatedly misspelling his user-name isn't especially adult either. How about leaving him alone and get on with contributing to the encyclopedia?

As an aside I agree with Chaser re the sockpuppet allegations. If there is evidence, take it to the proper forum. Otherwise, leave it alone. Euryalus 06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I told him in my last post that I was through with this suggestion since he said he would not help anyway. This report from him was not needed and his accusation was an NPA. I will try not to mis-spell his name. Pot and Pots are the same meaning anyway. A Crockpot is an electric pot for making stew, yes? •smedleyΔbutler• 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Crock-pot is for making stew, yes. "Crockspot" is the handle of a Wikipedia editor and nothing else.--Chaser - T 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for general comment)For now, just stay away from each other. Wiki is a huge place, there is no need, if you don't get along, to talk to each other, or edit the same articles, just don't do it. Mr. Sutler, I have some sympathey for some of your positions, but if you go out of your way to interact with crockspot, I will be at your WP:CSN, as quick as anyone (and vice-versa. . .take that how you will --in either case). Wikipedia is not a battleground (stop making it one!) and if you see it that way, you're in the wrong place (not speaking to anyone in particluar). Respectfully, R. Baley 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)(comment strike at 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) by R. Baley)

Bmedley has already been blocked by User:Thatcher131 for 24 hours for taunting and another 24 hours for acting as a proxy for FAAFA. He was warned that this would be his only warning [15][16]. He continues to taunt by reposting the RfA quotes. This is the noticeboard that needs to take action against this, not SSP. The issue is taunting, not sockpuppetry and it continues even after a 24 hr block. --Tbeatty 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the above post is a harrassment. The 'only' warning was about making proxy posts for that FAAFA. I have seen lots of warnings for NPA and taunting. No one gets an 'only' warning for such things like quoting what someone actually wrote on another site. He wrote those things, not me! No offense but IMO Tbeatty is maybe on purposely mis-stating what happenned to get administrator action taken on me. IMO, he is part of an organized group and campaign that continuingly harrass Seven of Diamonds, Giovanni33, me, and a few others to try and ban leftists who resist them. If this harrassment continues I will be making an action on them. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact wording:

“

• Result Blocked 24 hr for proxy editing and 24 hr for taunting. This will be his only warning. Thatcher131 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

”

--Tbeatty

Tbeatty's comment is correctly pointing out that you are continuing some of the behavior that led to a block. That is not harrassment. Also, this thread is about your behavior, and has nothing to do with neither Giovanni nor SOD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look who shows up! Where are the others? The 'only' warning was about proxy editing for that FAAFA. Tbeatty, IMO, tries to make it sound like I got an 'only' warning for NPA or 'taunting'. I have seen some editors post NPA attacks dozens of times with only warnings, not even blocks. Now Tbeatty is pushing for an action? This is too funny. Why is it the same 4-6 editors show up where ever I post? Is this not Wikistalking? This harrassment must stop. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No one follows yur posts. You end up on AN/I. You end up on AN/I because you are trolling. The fact that a majority of your posts are defending yourself on AN/I is not evidence of other people stalking you. --Tbeatty 08:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You actually argued the opposite point regarding MONGO. Stating the numerous AN/I posts regarding him are proof of harassment and trolling. Two sets of rules? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats it! "Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I should not be attacked because I have not yet mastered English! I ask that Pablo gets a 24 hr block for NPA. •smedleyΔbutler• 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask that Tbeatty gets a 24 hr block for his NPA saying I am trolling too. This harassment and Wikistalking from the same small group must stop! •smedleyΔbutler• 08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Further, there is no consensus among admins that NPA violations ever warrant a block. I suggest you drop this and find an article to edit. You seem to be involved in a one-sided battle. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isolated personal attacks are rarely blockable, but deliberate and repeated personal attacks, incitement, and treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground are indeed blockable and even bannable, if not by the community then by ArbCom. Bmedley has several agendas and he needs to be told that agenda-driven editing is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals and philosophy. Thatcher131 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have raised this issue previously on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and have provided other evidence linking this account with FAAFA's to Thatcher131 via email, along with past arbitration principles (including one from the arbcom that FAAFA was banned under) that show that there is more than enough evidence to treat this user as FAAFA. No serious action has yet been taken. I have even been told by admins in email that they are certain that they are the same editor, but that banned users should be given a chance to return and edit positively. Well this editor has maintained the same patterns of behavior that got FAAFA banned, fighting with the same users. From the day that Bmedley appeared, he has showed up in articles that I have long showed an interest in and attempted to disrupt by making suggestions that clearly do not meet our sourcing, npov, and OR policies and guidelines. He makes all too familiar suggestions that if other editors don't help him prove X, then they must be Xists. He says he has not mastered english, but sometimes in discussion, he slips into perfect english, like it was his mother tongue. I wonder what his claimed mother tongue is, and would like to see him converse in it in real time with someone else who speaks that language. I have only posted the latest diffs, because a significant percentage of his edits in discussion and talk contain cheap shots and attacks. If I have to take the time to document every single one, I will bring them before the arbitration committee, not here. - Crockspot 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If repeated personal attacks are bannable (sp?) ... well it seems someone should have been banned by now for their attacks on me. Things on AN/I seem to go in one direction only. Also what is classified as "fighting" with the same users should be looked at from the other side. If those users believe he is FAAFA, then perhaps they are fighting with him on purpose. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Which "someone" are you referring to? I have been showing an incredible amount of patience and restraint, and am not getting satisfactory action. - Crockspot 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not you, just a general point since my name was brought up here, I am starting to become a celebrity of sorts and would prefer people just let me edit in peace without subjecting me to WikiLaw & Politics 101. I am pointing out the irony of the situation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in my case, I have been trying to avoid conflict with Bmedley, to the point where he has driven me away from editing articles I have long been interested in. If anyone cares to notice, I am keeping my contributions mostly to discussion. In the article linked above, I even provided him a link and some information to assist and guide him to doing accurate research on this topic, but that was not good enough for him, so I must be a racist. I've had about enough. - Crockspot 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in a similar situation in a further case of irony. I cannot edit articles related to one of my interests because I am afraid I will be compared to anyone else in my city editing it. I know the feeling, however it is probably for the best, and with all the articles on Wikipedia, I learned it is better to avoid the dramatists and just find something else to edit. Luckily I find peace in other articles that I am sure the "political" people on Wikipedia will have little interest in. Something that may help you, visit your local bookstore and pickup a book about a topic you enjoy. Hopefully it will have some useful information for you to add to an article. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So your suggestion to solve the problem of an abusive sockpuppet in direct violation of an arbitration ruling is to go read a nice book? Perhaps I'm the one who needs to leave Wikipedia. - Crockspot 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion is that calling each other names will not solve the issue. Is there a solution here? You want him banned on account he is a sockpuppet, something you will not bring to the appropriate venue to check. He thinks he has disengaged from you, and you keep bringing up the issue to stir drama. My suggestion as other suggested is to avoid eachother. It is a big encyclopedia. My suggestion to you, if you are here to help the encyclopedia, is to help expand articles, instead of fighting over what should and should not be in them. There are tons of articles that can use expansion and citations, pick one and enjoy the Zen of editing in near peace. Avoiding the dramatic will make you a better editor in my humble opinion. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This colloquy is rather beside the point; Seven will have ample opportunity to address his concerns in the pending Arbitration case. As for Bmedley, I know he is in contact with FAAFA but I do not believe he is a sock or meat puppet (that is, I don't believe he has directly acted on a request by FAAFA since I blocked him for it). I do think he is driven by an agenda, and he needs to adjust his behavior. Thatcher131 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Thanks Thatcher, I was of course replying to Bmedley's demand that Tbeatty be blocked for 24 hours, but I should probably have clarified my comments more. Certainly if Bmedley continues to disrupt the project then that would be a different situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize which comment you were referring to. Thatcher131 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was clear in my head, why wasn't it clear in yours? :P Seriously, thanks for making it clear to me how unclear I'd been. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That blocks are preventative, not punitive is understood, but Bmedley's behavior issues are ongoing and show no shows of stopping. He's been blocked twice (and just missed a third), how long do we have to put up with unprovoked taunting like this? I don't see a consensus to block now, but I hope that we put him on a very short leash and make the next block longer. RxS 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another support for a block for BMedley. I opposed at Crockspot's RfA, but ruthlessly dogging the guy isn't acceptable behavior. His actions in the past are worth NOTING for an RfA, but NOT strong enough nor valid enough to pursue any sort of consequences on wikipedia for him, like banning him as some sort of agenda warrior. You can't go around harrassing him with that forever, BMedley, an the fact that you're not listening here, as Strangelove notes above, weighs more, to me at least, than Crockspot's old actions. I think that they once blocked his RfA is probably the end of their viability as leverage against him. We all saw it, and we acted upon it to our consciences. You need to leave him alone. (Yes, I realize it's bizarre that I'm defending Crockspot, but different situations are different.) ThuranX 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think those are FAAFAs pictures unless you know something I dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmedley Sutler (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Time to take action?

It seems clear from the above, if nothing else, that Bmedley is disruptive. In addition to any other issues, he has demanded that two editors be blocked for 24 hours each for perceived personal attacks - neither of which is blockable - which indicates he is making any dispute a personal battle. This wastes everyone's time. Is there support for more substantial action about this, above and beyond the patient explanations everyone has been giving him? mentorship? Some kind of parole? Community ban? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest on-wiki mentorship or something for all those involved- Tbeatty, Mongo, Crock, Seven, and the rest. There has been at least four or five issues within this troupe in the past few weeks. Maybe it all started at Crock's RfA; in any case, that's when I noticed it. But the repetitious bad faith, personal attacks, and appearances on AN/I asking for each other's blocks is not helping the wiki at all. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would actually love a mentor, however it may not be needed since I do not participate in drama filled political articles anymore. However if another admin would like to assist in guiding me, that would be more than welcome. I have questions abound. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but something needs to be done. The disruption, edit warring, incivility, etc... is getting to out of hand. Perhaps an admin mentor who will keep an eye on the user would be helpful.--Jersey Devil 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a ban from political articles for anyone who participates in an AN/I posting against the other? That would be interesting. If the behavior is bad, someone else is sure to notice it and report it themselves. Cleans up AN/I and maybe gives some users a much needed break from hot topics. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a very bad precedent, as it would permit any troll to pull a legitimate editor off of an article by harassing them on AN/I. THF 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my feelings are clear, I don't know how long we have to put up with this type of behavior. It's probably too soon for a full ban, but a longer block is absolutely in order. Any one who looks at his talk page/archive can see all the warnings...he's an ongoing source of disruption. If there are other editors people have issues with that's fine, but please don't lump them all in here....they are separate issues. RxS 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do not think it is all separate issues. It is the same drama from the same group, my self included up until I just gave up and walked away from the articles. I have actually recommended others such as Crockspot and Smedley do the same. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia to edit, which is why I decided to more focus on narco-terror related articles. I was pushed out by the same people calling for Smedleys ban. The same people who are on AN/I everyday calling for the ban of what can only be classified as another upset "left leaning" editor. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I also want to make something clear before some clever person wiki links it. I do not think there is a cabal, but how often do you see the same editors calling for a ban of someone they are in conflicts with. I am sure its a possibility that editors from all over possibly gravitate to them to ca use them stress, or its something else. Its up to Wikipedia to determine which it is. Believing there is a cabal attacking them, is just as "wacky" as believing they are a cabal. The answer lies obviously in the center somewhere. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved in your arbcom, I only edited a related article one time. Bmedley has been appearing in articles I have a history of contributing to. He went around this weekend and taunted other supposed RW cabalists to help him research his latest interest. This issue has nothing to do with you, it is about Bmedley. Though if he does get dragged into your arbitration, I will be there with bells on, and a list of diffs that will choke a donkey. - Crockspot 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone looking at the series of warnings/blocks on his talk/archive page will see that a fairly broad range of editors have issued them. I don't think this concern is limited to a small group of editors. RxS 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support doing something, with the specific value of "something" being left to community consensus. Dealing with the drama that perpetually surrounds Bmedley has become a time sink, turning Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a sociological experiment. I don't edit any of the same articles as Bmedley but anyone who has kept up with the proceedings to date can recognize that he's not an innocent party being unjustly persecuted, as he would have it. Raymond Arritt 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Smedley involved in the SevenofDiamonds arbcom case, if he isn't, he should be tossed in there and let arb com deal with him, he's also involved in the same topic. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he's not listed at this time, and he has not entered a statement on the case. I'm not so sure about "tossing", but as its all intertwined it does seem like an excellent idea to have it all out at once, rather than piecemeal. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but my Arbcom is about a specific issue, attempting to lump my Arbcom arbitrarily into another issue seems foolish. Considering the attitudes here. I will present my counter-evidence to Arbcom and leave Wikipedia. The political bickering the exudes from this place once a editor receives a username is beyond comprehension. I should have just stood anonymous, editing without issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support a longer term block for disruption, maybe a month or so, with the clear indication to him that the next time he acts up he'll be gone indefinitely. Coddling him and mentorship will not work, since he clearly has it in his mind to be polemic, vitriolic, and disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is clear-cut enough. Supports/disagrees/comments? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See ThuranX's comment immediately preceeding this subsection. - Crockspot 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather see arbcom deal with all this in one case, I do support the month block as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) With regard to mentorship etc., admins can only warn, threaten and then block. With regard to blocks being preventative, not punative: yes, but sometimes prevention takes the form of blocking people so that they learn we are serious about enforcing community norms of behavior. Regarding action toward Bmedley at this time, I would suggest opening a user conduct RFC. One of Bmedley's complaints is that he is attacked by the same small group of users. So I would post a notice of the RFC on the CSN asking people who have never been involved with Bmedley to review the case and offer input. If the combined weight of many experienced Wikipedians does not convince Bmedley to change his attitude and approach, we would have the basis for either strong community action or Arbitration. Regarding Jaranda's comment, ArbCom sees this as a case against Seven (see particularly JamesF's acceptance vote) and ArbCom frankly does very poorly with blanket cases whose scope keeps expanding. It would be better to open a separate case against Bmedley. However, they usually will not review a case without a prior RFC, and ArbCom would only be needed after the RFC if there was a serious disagreement among admins as to how to handle the situation (as there is with Seven). We don't need ArbCom to spend two months to endorse a long block, topic ban, or site ban for a user who persistently "doesn't get it" as long as there is consensus among us admins. Thatcher131 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree to this block, and agree that Arbcom doesn't necessarily need to be involved at this point. RxS 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not totally a disagreement with a block (he certainly "doesn't get it"), but Bmedley certainly isn't the only one in this situation who is being polemic, vitriolic or disruptive, as SwatJester put it. David Fuchs was correct above. ELIMINATORJR 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are referring to me, which I don't think that you are, the other people are all involved in an arbcom, and will have their behavior investigated fully. This notice is a complaint by me against a single user. All these other distractions are just that, distractions. - Crockspot 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a month long block and do see it as a preventative block as per the comments made by Thatcher. I'm not sure a user conduct RFC would be appropriate as it would just make the process needlessly longer for something we all already know (that the user is causing a disturbance to normal wikipedia processes). But if you guys would like to go that direction I'd be fine with it as well.--Jersey Devil 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Roll it in with the SoD arbitration if the committee will have it. There are more editors beyond those named there that are part of the problem.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Smedley has been a warrior from day one. It would be ideal if he could take a step back and contribute in some less controversial or confrontational areas... that would go a long way toward demonstrating that he's here to improve the encyclopedia rather than fight with specific users over specific topics. Based on what I've seen so far, it would be really hard for me to disagree with a block for disruption at this point. However, if ArbCom will take the issue up that might be ideal, because the best solution may be a form of probation etc. rather than a block or ban. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with mastcell here. I think if Smedley backed off from the controversial articles, we would see if he's here to improve the encyclopedia and its a "near occasion of wiki-sin" or he's just plain disruptive. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Its not all my fault. How many times has Crockspot and the others been told to quit calling me a sockpuppet? And to take these accusations to an official hearing? And stop throwing wild charges about me? They already filed one RFCU that came back empty. There is a small group of 4-6 editors who fight anyone with a leftist POV. How many false RFCUs did they file on SevenOD? I would suggest a hearing on the actions of this whole group and the leftists they fought against. Go back 2 or 3 years. You will see to find an organized campaign of harrassments, complaints, call for bannings, and then bannings of those who don't share their exact POV. They have run wild over Wikipedia getting their way. And I mean no offense but a few administrators helped them and put politics before enforcing the rules fairly on both sides too. Look at the complaint boards. This groups names are there every day. They were fighting long before I got here. Any calls to action on me is just more of how they got their way for years now. I will avoid any arguing with them and when they attack me Ill just run to a complaint board too. See, one more time they get their way. Seven got run off certain articles and now I am too. Or facing a block. I will choose to avoid any conflict with them on any talk pages where we both edit. But I expect that they should have to follow the rules as much as I do. Thanks for the advice. To show that I have more than any agenda, I will go back to editing mor of the Big Sur articles which I wrorked on a lot before drawing in like a magnet to certain political articles where they are guarded like a grizzly bear mother guarding her young with 'White Wash' agendas. Please notice too, that when I first got here I suspected that CIA and DOD and USGOV were editing many articles. Guess what? Wikipedia should reflect a global POV. Not the POV of only the American right wing! I made these suspicions of the CIA and USGOV editing articles public and I was called crazy and paranoid and ordered by several administrators to stop and not to make any more of these accusations. Months later now the Wikiscanner poofs come out and show that I was right and this same group who called me crazy, and of whom I have so many problems was wrong! Whos laughing now? I will avoid this group where ever possible so that there needs to be no action on me as is their plan. Okay? Okay! •smedleyΔbutler• 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More distraction. Who is "they"? Go back two or three years? I've been on Wikipedia a year and a half. I am here as an individual editor, filing a complaint against an individual editor, namely you. Your behavior toward me is unacceptable, and my complaint has nothing to do with any "others", nor with Seven, who's arbitration I am neither involved with, nor want to be. BTW, I looked at the wikiscanner output, and I have not seen any articles that I am involved in on the edit lists of the USCHIMPBUSHGOV and CIASPOOK edits. Do you still think I'm a "spook" for the CIA or the secret Rove empire? - Crockspot 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) PS I have also never requested a checkuser on Bmedley. None is required, he has already admitted editing in proxy for FAAFA, and according to the arbitration ruling involving FAAFA, that is enough to assume and treat them as the same user. - Crockspot 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did Crockspot or anyone else call you a sockpuppet before you made edits clearly at the behest of FAAFA? You have to own your responsibility for that. Thatcher131 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Smedley was accused of being a sockpuppet of Giovanni, then of FAAFA before he made the Big Sur edit to include FAAFA's pictures, which are honestly nice pictures. The sockpuppet check is under Giovanni33's name. It also accuses me of being Smedley. Consider me officially gone, and thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I had anything to do with that. Because I voted in the past in a few AfDs similarly to some other editors, I am assumed to be the ringleader, or at least tied at the hip with these users. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't even have the same interests in most articles. I am primarily concerned with BLP articles, those "others" are more concerned with NPOV aspects of topical non-biographies. - Crockspot 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he and they did. I would have to check though. Look at Crockspots 'tone' above. "USCHIMPBUSHGOV" "Rove Empire" Its 'Mocking' and 'Taunting' IMO. I don't find it funny or helpful. And here on an official complaint baord? Of course he wants to not include the others in 'his' group and change the issue. I can go back a month and find a complaint where I ask to have this whole group looked at for harrassing me and others. If its going to be charges and counter charges asking for bannings and blocks and actions, lets address my months old complaint along with Crockspots call for only action of him vs me.To make peace I will be the one to 'walk away' as he advised others to do involved in a conflict, but seems to be his advice for others only. •smedleyΔbutler• 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Post some diffs, or stop making the accusations. I have stopped editing nearly ALL articles, because of you. My contributions are now limited to fighting blatant vandalism, and participating in discussion. - Crockspot 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now your problems are all my fault?! Go edit any article you want. I think maybe Beauchamp. I'll give you all the distance you want and avoid conflicting with you to show my 'good faith'. I do not have time for any 'diffs' until tonight, and would rather edit articles than fight on complaint boards anyway. •smedleyΔbutler• 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this adds anything, but add me to the list of folks whose assumptions of good faith in Bmedley have been crushed and who now support more decisive action. Most posts I've seen by Bmedley have little to do with the article in question and are either loosely related ideological harangues, far-fetched accusations of being personally attacked, or, most commonly, personal attacks (as delineated by WP:NPA). When his/her behavior is pointed out, he/she either ignores it or has a defense such as misunderstanding the English language ("playing stupid" as Pablo puts it) or saying that being gay means that rules against homophobic personal attacks don't apply to him/her. I do not know about the behavior of anyone else here, but I have seen Bmedley's behavior, and agree with the well-put conclusions of users like RxS and Raymond Arritt. Bmedley clearly has no respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nor for the purpose of the project. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and discussion board for venting against, attacking, or libeling your ideological opponents. Even setting aside attacks and other subjectively judged actions, Bmedley has explicitly stated that he hopes to use Wikipedia to "focus on outing gay conservatives." His/Her admitted motives for being here are just as damning as his/her daily violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Calbaer 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think rolling 'all this' (whatever it is) into SevenOfDiamonds' arbitration would be useful. Thatcher's idea for an RfC is my first choice; very close second is an immediate long block. If no change in behavior shows Bmedley Sutler is here to advance the project, I would support an indefinite block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I might as well chime in here. I have sympathy for Bmedley, although I agree that he has made mistakes and we want certain behaviors to change. I disagree with blocking. Also a Rfc will just produce more talking. I think we've had more than enough of that. What Bmedley could use is mentoring. Give him someone dedicated, that he trusts and likes, and let him have a mentor here. The mentor should have credibilty so that when others come around to bait him, the mentor can have such others users sanctioned and stop them in their tracks. We have to remember that when Bmeley a new editor, he started to get attacked by a group of right wing editors who did not always play nice. Bmedley's behavior now is a direct response, a reaction, to these past incidents with the same folks who have harassed SevenOfDiamonds. Not everyone can take that the same way, or knows how to best respond. Some people respond by fighting back, and becoming embattled, etc. So, Smedley is really as much a victim here as is Wikipedia, and no one is free of some degree of fault, either by direct misbehavior, or be lack of taking action. The Arbcom case will hopefully solve some of the problems that lead to these political "battle ground' problems, but until then, perhaps a very old fashioned technique that is used on elementary school playgrounds will work, in conjunction with a mentor being asigned, along the lines of avoidance: you to to this side of the playground, and you go to the other side. Both sides avoid each other. Each side do not report anyone from the other side. Don't talk to each other. If you are both editing on the same article, one of you has to move on to another article. No wikistalking, no interaction, disengage, de-esclate, forget and forgive. If the other side continues as well (my main problem here is that this is all one-sided---its not just Bmeldely, there are two sides here)--then the mentor can report this with sanctions going against the other party for not disengaging.Giovanni33 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Smedley's first edit outside of his user space was to make a beeline for one of the most contentious fights going on at Wikipedia at the time. I also notice that he does not seem to have any trouble with the English language in that comment. - Crockspot 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow the advice from several administrators that you stop the un-related accusations and charges that have nothing to do with your primary charge that I am 'attacking' you. Please make a formal complaint about these accustations if you think you 'have' something. Another empty RFCU could be good. I agreed to give you distance. Im sorry if your feelings were hurt. Its time to move on. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making comments like "another failed RFCU", when I have never filed an RFCU on you. Again, you are blaming me for the actions of others. - Crockspot 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Blocks are prentitive not punative. I 100% agree to leave Crockspot alone, so there is no need for any block. Not 5 minutes. You can set an action that the next time I 'attack' him I could receive a block. I actually have very few warnings. Look at my page. I bring up the differnce in treatment of a well-known RW editor Bellowed, and me. Take a look at his NPAs and mine. No offense but the cards are stacked around here. If you're a RW editor who thinks the USA and Bush does no wrong, you do have a much easier time here. This is fact. This should end. Back to the subject. I 100% agree to avoid 'attacking' Crockspot. I will edit different articles than him. There is no need for any block at all. I'll go back to my Big Sur articles too, where I made a lot of contributions that show that I have the good of the project in my heart, not some agenda. And for Calbear I explain that I have many 'agendas' not one. Making the Big Sur articles better is my most important agenda. Making sure that other articles are not "White Washed" is another. Thank you for your time. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself, but I will say that throwing around terms like "RW", "squashed" "White Washed" underscores my feeling that his behavioral issues will continue. He has promised to cool the rhetoric before but it continues even while a block is discussed. In my opinion an RFC would not be effective (most are not, this case isn't an exception) and would make this burn hotter. I still would suggest a longer block at this point in time. RxS 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Those arent attacks, and I will point to some adminstrators discussing hot issues like SlimVirgin who use much more rhetoric than that above. Some are more equal than others. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to those who charge that I never assumed good faith on Bmedley's part that I worked with him on his first article creation, Deetjen's Big Sur Inn. We even chatted a bit about Big Sur outside of the article and talk page. Some of the best sources in that article are one's that I found and included. This was just weeks before my RfA, and I don't remember having any conflicts with him between that time and the moment he torpedoed my RfA. I have no more good faith left for him. He used it all up. - Crockspot 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed Bmedley Sutler had a single agenda, just that he/she hoped to, using his/her words, "focus on [using Wikipedia to the ends of] outing gay conservatives." This agenda is further evidenced by the user's glee in reporting any homosexual activity regarding conservatives, no matter how irrelevant it is to the dialogue at question. (What does Larry Craig, whom I'd never heard of before today, have to do with whether this user should be banned or mentored? Nothing.) Likewise, RxS didn't say that Bmedley Sutler's language in the paragraph above denoted an "attack," but rather heated rhetoric. The fact that Bmedley Sutler is continually reminded, through words and actions, of the proper purposes, guidelines, and policies of Wikipedia, yet chooses to ignore them, makes me think that mentoring would be useless in and of itself. It might, however, be useful in having someone who is allied with his ideological positions being forced to choose between defending violations of policies or, more likely, confirm that Bmedley Sutler's actions are both incorrigible and unacceptable to users of any ideological stripe. Calbaer 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, now you are bringing up the issue you don't want discussed again! You made those comments on that other site. Someone pointed them to me. I felt that for the good of The Project (Wiki) that they should be discussed here in the election. I now know that that person maybe did not have the good of the project (Wiki) in his heart when he told me of them. That doesnt change the comments. I didnt have anything personal against you. Thank you for helping on the Deetjen's article. Guess what? If my mother had made those same comments it would still be my duty to report them. (Unrelated) Like the soldier who reported Abu Gharib. He did the right thing, and now has to hide and change his name and is under protection from all the death threats.•smedleyΔbutler• 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, what articles are you 'not editing' because of my actions? Just name them and I will leave to let you edit and only add my posts if theres a request for votes on something. This is how far I am willing to go to make accomadations for you. What articles? Beauchamp Im sure. Matt Drudge? Matt Sanchez? Pick 5. •smedleyΔbutler• 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know who Matt Sanchez is. - Crockspot 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? You commented (I think) about his claims on the Beauchamp article. He is well discussed there and posts there. Which articles have my actions prevented you from editing? Just name them and I will give you them. This is a solution, unless (no attack meant) what you want isnt really a solution but a banning or long block of another leftist editor for your group that you deny your part of. (no offense) •smedleyΔbutler• 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Calbear: You know Im a male. An out Gay male. A Gay activist Gay male. You know that 100% certainly. We discussed it at long. Calling me 'he/she' (transgender or transvestite) is a 100% unnacceptable insult on my sexuality and you know it, especially after you accusing me of calling you Gay when I never did such a thing! •smedleyΔbutler• 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You told me you were gay. I do not recall your telling me your gender. I have had female friends refer to themselves as "gay" (which is much easier to say than "LGBT"), so I did not want to presume that you were necessarily male. "He/she" is not a knock on your gender, but rather a reflection of my ignorance of it (and a reflection of my getting tired of writing "he or she" and/or "this user" over and over again). Now I know and will, if necessary, refer to you as "he" or "him." Calbaer 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, your sexual preferences are irrelevant. Please don't try to change the subject. No one has taken any pot shots at your sexual orientation. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Bredley for a week for disruption here and per community concensus, I also recommend that if he goes back to his trolling ways after the block, a community ban maybe in order. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Support for that. In light of BMedley's rules-lawyering 'blocks are preventative not punative and I won't do it again', and other such things, and a few strawmen/red herrings, instead of just getting down to brass tacks, I can't see anything but to do this. ThuranX 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also support. The foregoing discussion is a microcosm of the "Bmedley issue": he shifted the topic away from his actions and toward the Great Struggle between left and right wing politics. And as usual other editors fell for it like a ton of bricks. I thank User:Jaranda for cutting through the fog and getting back to the issue at hand. Raymond Arritt 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the block because of the following quote: "It guess hiding well known conservatives homosexuality is more your liking. I read that vandal patrol is the best way to worm into administratorship." This does not indicate acceptance of the consensus approach. Eiler7 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know about Bmedley's other activities, since I'd never taken much note of him until a few days ago, but he did have one of the better responses to the whole Michael Moore kerfluffle: He emailed Moore and asked him to take the links down, which was ultimately more helpful and constructive than a lot of people's actions (my own included). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this user will ever learn that Wikipedia is not a battleground for agendas. See this edit made during his block.--Jersey Devil 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Proud terrorist

Resolved

 – User blocked; email sent to Aussie gov't — Scientizzle 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The user made this unnerving post. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, and probably just a dumb kid trying to be funny. Well, when some government supercomputer picks up on this, he'll have a fun visit from men in suits. It's no worry to us though, user blocked, edit appears to have been reverted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, someone's getting to get lesson 101 in "Why trolling the Internet by making stupid threats is not all that funny." It doesn't look like anything remotely plausible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good banning. Good choice! •smedleyΔbutler• 06:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um, do the Australians celebrate Guy Fawkes? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Australian so I have no idea :p, but seriously I don't know how that username survive more than a few seconds, it was a obvious username block. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't. We probobly would if fireworks were legal though. Viridae^Talk 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here, but in the 0.01% chance this is something more than a stupid kid, shouldn't the relevant information here be forwarded to the proper local authorities? On the off chance there's something to this, action might be taken that could prevent something bad from happening; this is the sort of editing that may be illegal (as it involves threats of harm) and shouldn't be brushed under the rug; and even if it's a stupid kid, this type of vandalism should be actively discouraged. All that needs to happen is a checkuser & an email, right? — Scientizzle 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How many terrorists, do you think, would choose such a blatant and ridiculous username as that yet expect to be taken seriously? - Alison ☺ 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, I believe this is a 1 in 10,000 chance of being more than a stupid punk. But if it's not...and even if it's not, it maybe warrants law enforcement attention. Threats of terrorist violence shouldn't be ignored, in my opinion, even if far-fetched. This isn't "I wanna kick John's butt at lunch". As I suggested, all that would be needed on our end is an email with the IP address of the vandal to some (presumably) Australian authorities...they can choose to follow up. — Scientizzle 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree strongly with User:Scientizzle --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions, then, on whom I should contact about this? Is this an email-the-foundation thing, or should I just recruit a checkuser? I'll do the emailing if necessary, I just don't want to waste anyone's time if there's aprocedure for this sort of thing... — Scientizzle 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ has a freecall phone number if you are really worried - but my guess is it is some kid thinking he is smart. Viridae^Talk 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Imagine they have an email too, but I'd agree with Viridae, this is some kid that thinks it's funny. Though even in that case I suppose a visit from the police might dissuade him of that notion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling Australia would be a bit much for me...but without the IP address there's no useful info, right? I'm no checkuser, so perhaps I'll go through the foundation or something. I'm not really worried--I'm sure it's some acne-riddled teen's lousy "joke"--but I see no good reason not to inform the authorities and plenty of good reason to do so. — Scientizzle 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an email address if you want to report something -- hotline@nationalsecurity.gov.au . I haven't done so because I donb't think this is that important, but if you have concerns this might be the way to go. Euryalus 10:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Email sent. The Australian authorities can follow up if they so please. — Scientizzle 15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war Abecedare

I'm trying to create an article for the Mythological epic Ramayana Bridge (Rama's Setu). I'm been obstructed from the same. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The current day bridge Adams Bridge is popularly know in the west as well as the east. The mythologies revolving arround the article are different so it was but obvious to have created a new page to talk about the mythology involving the epic Ramayana.

But I was obstructed in doing the same.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion here and check BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · block log)'s history of disruptive editing and frivolous ANI complaints, including another just a couple of days back. Abecedare 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BR. Please try DR or RfC if that doesn't work. You've been told that the last time. Please don't bring here again content dispute. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

personal attack

i would like to report a personal attack in the form of accusing a user of vandalism here "Remove vandalism by Cholga, who falsely claims "consensus" on this issue when there is none." the user is also making a false statment and accusing the other user of lying since the talk page clearly shows a clear consensus of 5 to 2.here this user is ILike2BeAnonymousCholga^talK! 08:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, and 5-2 is not clear consensus, it is a bare majority. Suggest getting more input from ARticle Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

a little off the subject but AWESOME username killer chihuahua i just noticed it hahhaCholga^talK! 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

it is not a content dispute the article for the disputed tag clearly states why/when that tag should be used and it does not fit this situation so it was removed by Cholga because it is being misused. In doing so Cholga was accussed of vandalism. Accusing another user of vandalism is a personal attack according to policy, that user IL2BA should be warned for this.Cholga^talK! 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IL2BA is wrong on the issue, and on the incivility, but the appropriate step is to take it to RfC. Did you inform IL2BA that you posted this here? Argyriou (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you make a RfC? I did not, am I required to or is it just a good idea?Cholga^talK! 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A RFC might not be the best solution yet, unless there are several editors experiencing problems with the editor who accused you of vandalism (but you can explore the option at the link I provided). I'd recommend posting this on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first. (PS your username is pretty cool too.) Anynobody 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor again

As he recently did with the Merano article, Gryffindor (his contributions) is unilaterally moving pages related to the Province of Bolzano-Bozen article abusing his admin powers and is trying to call in hundreds of users to move "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" to "South Tyrol". It seems that every 1-2 months he feels the need to do something wrong.--Supparluca 08:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Every 1-2 months" is being pretty kind. :-) Icsunonove 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing DYK nominations because of "squabble"

I would like to get the communities input on removing did you know nominations because you disagree with the DYK admins decisions about your articles. W.marsh (talk · contribs) block removed a large number of his contributions with an edit summary stating, "I know longer want this or any other article I created squabbled over here by bean counters." If you view the removed edits you see that Amarrg (talk · contribs) had commented on the length of his nominations in regards to how DYKS are selected. I left W.marsh a custom warning message after he began edit warring to keep removing his noms. I dont want to be beating a dead horse but feel that W.marsh is violating WP:POINT and has now broken the WP:3RR at Template talk:Did you know. I have made an effort to address this issue with the editor in question however my talk page comments were reverted or ignored. He has been notified of this thread. A second opinion on this would be much appreciated. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is trivial beyond belief... Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed. He has also posted annoying messages to my talk page to that effect, and of course moved on to step 3, the AN/I thread. This all could have been solved by simply asking himself whether he needed to go gung ho over a failed nomination, or just let another editor edit in peace. He chose the former. This is not an important issue. --W.marsh 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, I have never crossed your path on this project. The comment, " Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed" is completly out of line and a complelte lack of assuming good faith. 18 bytes short, I would offer to fix them. Removing them before the nom truly expires is counter productive to the point of DYK. DYK is not black and white. It is fluid, you make changes you fix things that are wrong with articles. You dont delete them in anger because of "bean counters" Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Except of all the people whining about the 18 bytes, no one has bothered to edit the article or explain what the extra 18 bytes might actually add, other than meeting a meaningless quota. If that had been the focus of the discussion, my reaction would have been totally different. --W.marsh 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That is right, not even you have offered to expand it. You will gladly WP:OWN your posts at TTDYK but dont feel, it is worth it to add 18 bytes to an article you nominated instead feel it would be better to just delete it. Do you see why I am frustrated now? It has nothing to do with "out to get you." I dont even know who you are. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • if you have a problem with the way DYK is run, or think it is stupid, try to reform it. I dont disagree with you that 18 bytes is stupid and I prob would have put it up anyways. I thought they were well written articles which is one of the reasons I did not want to see them removed. We need good DYK articles and you clearly can write them. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Where did I say I wanted the article deleted? You're just making things up now. --W.marsh 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• If someone doesn't want their stuff on DYK, it doesn't have to be there, no? Moreschi ^Talk 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that just like saying if somebody does not want there stuff in the article, they can take it out too? GFDL? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In every forum on Wikipedia, one can withdraw one's own nominations if it's doomed and everyone agrees. It's just common sense, as I said in an edit summary. --W.marsh 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • GDFL is not relevant here in the slightest. You know that just as well as I do. Complete red herring. Moreschi ^Talk 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No, that is exactly what this is about. I hate to see people, remove good content because they have a disagreement or are too proud to add 18 bytes to an article. I feel he does not WP:OWN his content being he released it under GFDL and does not have the "right" to remove it. I will go add the damn 18 bytes to the article because I like the articles. It has nothing to do with out to get somebody or making attacks. It has everything to do with how I believe this project shoudl work where people cant take back there stuff because they disagree. If these were truly doomed, I would not give a damn. The only critique was, 18 bytes short. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note to explain the first reversion was by me, purely because W.marsh had carelessly also deleted someone else's nomination of a second article that was nothing to do with him. Subsequent to-ings & froings have just involved his article, so are strictly not the same reversion. He does seem amazingly bad-tempered, I must say. Johnbod 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically a Kentucky editor who probably knew or cared little of this silly dispute has since added the precious 18 bytes and more to the article. --W.marsh 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was going to say, I woul dlike to thank Dale Arnett (talk · contribs) for beating me to expanding the article! Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Excuse me, but why on earth would a DYK nomination fail over something as ludicrous as being eighteen bytes too short? What's the point of that, other than meaningless red tape? >Radiant< 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I guess people may be confusing the word should with must in the guideline: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters of main body text in size, and preferably longer - no stubs." -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because if you say something sensible, like "of reasonable length", too many people would be unable to function properly due to no criteria to do their thinking for them (even if it's utterly arbitrary and counter-productive, as all such criteria are). This is a general rule and in no way specific to DYK, or even Wikipedia. Neil ム 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• DYK rules guidelines used to get bent or broken all the time, and for good reason... the real goal of DYK, in my view, is to foster good and interesting article contributions by both new, and established editors, and their subsequent improvement. I'd point to my latest DYK article Christopher Columbus (whaleback) which was a pretty good article, but is now a lot better after having gotten exposure, lots of other editors came in and made improvements. That's the sort of thing DYK fosters. I am not sure that being 18 bytes short of a suggested guideline is a "doomed" nomination that needs removal immediately, nor am I sure that an editor should feel that preventing a nom is appropriate... DYK is a consensus driven process, or is supposed to be, and while it is rare that someone doesn't want "their" article featured on the front page, it's not entirely their decision. That said if people are nitpicking authors or their noms, that's not good. The guidelines exist to cut down on squabbling, not to foster it. For the most part they have been effective at improving the perceived reasonableness of the process. Ultimately, though, people who don't like the outcomes should get more involved in the process and do some updates themselves to see what it's like. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this particular article would have been ignored by the updaters. On the other hand, it is not that difficult to add 18 bytes of text to the page. Although there is no instruction creep, we need to stick to some sort of rules/guidelines. W.marsh should have been more patient. If he/she absolutely needed to remove the nomination, the best course was to comment it out, rather than summarily removing a bunch of comments and even an unrelated nomination. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it would have been ignored either. Nor do I think it would have been hard to come up with what, 4 words? Some sort of guidelines are good, some patience is good too, some flexibility in applying guidelines is good too. Hopefully that is that? ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actions of User:Phil Sandifer at WP:DRV

Will Admins please keep an eye on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 26? Phil Sandifer prematurely closed the "Child pornography" DRV inappropriately, claiming WP:ARBCOM as the only way to "overrule" him - certainly needs to kept an eye on. -81.178.126.124 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was neither inappropriate nor premature. See [17]. If you have an issue with this, contact the arbitration committee. There's no administrative action required here. Neil ム 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was also not closed by Phil Sandifer, but by User:WjBscribe. Corvus cornix 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is reviewing the incident. FloNight 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppetry to circumvent the 3RR rule

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

User:Ramdrake reported by User:MoritzB

• Three-revert rule violation on

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Previous versions reverted to: 20:17, 26 August 2007 and 12:57, 26 August 2007

Ramdrake has performed these six reverts either restoring deleted material or deleting added material. In his sixth edit he used a sockpuppet.

• 1st revert: 12:57 26 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:11, 26 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:15, 26 August 2007
• 4th revert: 16:50, 26 August 2007
• 5th revert: 20:17, 26 August 2007
• 6th revert (sockpuppet): 20:25, 26 August 2007

For confirmation of sockpuppetry used to circumvent WP:3RR see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ramdrake

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The consequence of the edit war and sockpuppetry was that the page was locked and is now in the version endorsed by the puppetmaster Ramdrake.

When I gave a message of the 3RR violation to Ramdrake. [18] he performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article and said so. [19]

However, 2 minutes after this edit Ramdrake's sockpuppet IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to his version.

I became suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada and Ramdrake lives in Montreal. See: [20]

The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar. [21] [22]

Then Ramdrake lies that he owns this IP address on his talk page. [23]

“

Please revert the article back to my version as per WP:3RR

MoritzB 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I did, but it looks like an IP reverted to my version right after that. --Ramdrake 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And you swear that this IP isn't yours?MoritzB 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I implied that.--Ramdrake 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

”

However, as User:Deskana concluded it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

Ramdrake has a history of disruptive editing and making false reports of sock puppetry. He is guilty of using a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule. He is a dishonest editor who lied after the sock puppetry was exposed. A long ban is the only appropriate sanction in this case. MoritzB 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see this AN/I report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nat^tang 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Ramdrake (talk) filed an SSP report against MoritzB (talk) 2 to 3 days before MoritzB (talk) fileed against Ramdrake (talk). So again, this reports is nothing more than a way for MoritzB (talk) to get his revenge agaist Ramdrake (talk). nat^tang 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The check user showed that I am not connected to "Franz". Besides, how does Ramdrake's previous report excuse the fact that Ramdrake circumvented the 3RR with a sockpuppet?

There is very strong evidence that he did so. I assumed good faith but because the IP address so obviously belongs to Ramdrake it is hard to trust in his honesty. Doesn't the IP address reported belong to Ramdrake?

MoritzB 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MoritzB has already filed a RFCU and a suspected sockpuppet report on me, using almost exactly the same material (this is basically a copy-and-paste of the same info). His (weak) case was turned down. He then filed for 3RR violation, but since he was also one of the edit-warrin parties, the article was already protected when the 3RR was evaluated, so he was turned down again, on the grounds that blocking for 3RR is preventive and not punitive. Now, he brings the same matter a third time up after being turned down twice, in order to seek -- I don't know what. Can an admin please kindly remind this user that this constitutes forum-shopping and as such is frowned upon at Wikipedia? Also, and for the record, this user is also under investigation for sockpuppetry, on grounds that look much less tenuous than those of his case. [24].--Ramdrake 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep evading the issue. Do you own that IP or not?

The checkuser request not accepted on the grounds of the technicality that the privacy policy prohibits releasing IPs. The reviewer User:Deskana concluded that it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake. You claimed that 3RR was not violated. However, it obviously was which was confirmed by the reviewer Heimstern Läufer. He directed to me to "post at WP:ANI about the sockpuppetry issue".

MoritzB 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Ramdrake may have more socks. Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [25] [26], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [27] Many more examples can be provided...) Recently Jeeny retired [28]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [29]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [30]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [31]. And of course they returned from the break together: [32] [33]. KarenAER 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER: if your evidence isn't sufficiently damning, did you also notice that Ramdrake's professed first name is Jean which is suspiciously like Jeeny?? That can hardly be a coincidence ;-) Mathsci 06:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3 different edits in a single minute:

• Ramdrake at 23:57, 27 August 2007
• Jeeny at 23:57, 27 August 2007
• Jeeny at 23:58, 27 August 2007

2 talk pages edits in a single minute:

• Jeeny at 13:30, 27 August 2007
• Ramdrake at 13:30, 27 August 2007

Do you still believe that they are socks? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah because those are small edits. If they posted long talk page edits, you may have been right. Do I need more evidence? How they revert to each others version in numerous articles? KarenAER 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick to the Jean/Jeeny line if I were you. Have you ever read the Miss Marple books? They might provide you with some useful hints on how to find non-circumstantial evidence. Never, never, never overlook the conservatory. -Mathsci 19:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! Yes, his name is Jean, so is mine. We also have the same letter in our last name G. ZOMG! We both live on the same continent. ZOMG! Difference. I'm a she, and I live in the US and my name is pronounced jeen, while his name is pronounced zhahn, I believe, because it is French. Yanno, like a lot of people in Quebec? ZOMG! :). It's spooky. I wouldn't be surprised if we were of similar age too. We think alike in some ways. ZOMG! Maybe we're long lost relatives. ZOMG! I think I'm back in high school with a bunch of bullies. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot one, I think we both have some American (Native) Indian (in my case, several great-great-grandparents) and some African (in my case, one great-great-great-grandfather) blood in us. Creeeeeepy! (ROTFLMHO).--Ramdrake 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG!! Are you my brother that I never knew I had, and always wanted??!!! Pfft. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER, your accusations of sockpuppetry are incredibly unconvincing. First it's Beh-nam and The Behnam because they have the same name and speak the same language, and now it's Jeeny and Ramdrake because they agree with each other. Please don't accuse Jeeny of being Ramdrake's sockpuppet again without very good evidence, it's bordering on harassment. With regards to the IP, obviously it's Ramdrake's. Picaroon (t) 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't mean to stick my nose in where I'm not invited, but does the tone used by Jeeny and Ramdrake in the posts immediately above this seem a small bit inappropriate for AN/I? If it isn't, just strike my comment and ignore me. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Why have you struck your comment Spring? Ramdrake and Jeeny, please use appropriate words to express yourselves. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, what inappropriate word(s) did I use? I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize.--Ramdrake 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say it loudly and it would be fine (i.e.ROTFLMHO). But when two people use excessive caps to just clutter threads than i am sorry Ramdrake i'd have the right to note it. Worse enough is that comments were struck by Jeeny using an odd edit summary. Is it this way that you guys handle discussions w/ other editors at talk pages? If yes than i am sorry to say that there is a problem indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for apologizing Randrake, much appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, certainly. Again, I apologize for my lack of decorum in this situation, and I can assure you I don't usually interact this way on WP. Comment well taken. :)--Ramdrake 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. As noted before, MoritzB has no evidence, it was all suggested to him by the instigator Karen, who even accused me of being Muntuwandi, based on nothing whatsoever![34]..

MoritzB has a history of edit disputes and racial pov-pushing and the articles in question that were blocked, was a result of his insistence of the pov, not the other way around. The sockpuppet case against him is solid.[35] He only opened this case because Karen suggested on his talk page that he do so since everything (his other cases) else failed miserably.[36]. A view of his talk page will indicate that he is the center of contention on more than one article. Cases of wikistalking were even filed against him due to persistent harassment and personal attacks.[37].

So in summary, the user is waisting people's time with this report imo as Ramdrake has done nothing wrong, is the least problematic of the two in general, and this is merely in spite of charges brought against him and a blind following of User:Karen's misguided suggestions.Taharqa 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF—I didn't strike my comment; I asked someone to strike it if it was wrong. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh i see it now. You comment couldn't survive. Well, it would serve as a monument. I don't know why people can't say sorry when they are clearly being criticized of something they've have done. Be it good or bad. !strike! rulez coupled w/ an odd edit edit summary is all you get. Maybe something like "oh, no sorry i don't think so" would have been sufficient. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Disruptive User at AFD

KennethStein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to make a walled garden of articles about himself. He created a page on himself, Ken Stein (speedied and now at DRV here). He also made articles on films he was in; Trees (film) (deleted as copyvio), Polycarp (2007 Film), and Silent (2007 film) (both at AFD now, more on that later).

Apparently, he got into a dispute with Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the DRV, then decided to nominate an article she wrote (Lay Down Sally) for deletion. It was speedied closed as a bad faith nom.

Then, this user created the account BaldDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who then voted "keep" at the AFD for both Silent and Polycarp. A checkuser confimed they use the same IP address here.

Just now, Stein nominated several articles created by a user who voted "delete" at the Silent AFD. (There his most recent contribs, but if you need me to i can find links)

-- New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

--He's just gone on a spree of bad faith (incorrectly formatted) AFD nominations for all articles I've worked on. The relevant articles are The Hamsters. Snail's Pace Slim‎, Rev Otis Elevator, Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist‎ WebHamster 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like he didn't know how to format AfDs, though. I've left a warning on his talk page. ELIMINATORJR 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I block the shared IP puppet account BaldDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); until this gets sorted out.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • AfDs for The Hamsters, Snail's Pace Slim‎, Rev Otis Elevator, & Ms Zsa Zsa Poltergeist have been closed. — Scientizzle 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over his contribs today, and after seeing his most recent ones, I've decided to block for 12 hours to let him cool off and attempt to prevent more trouble. Maxim_(talk) 20:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with that - indeed, he probably should have been blocked anyway for the use of the sock in AfD stacking (see above). ELIMINATORJR 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive anon user 68.236.58.232

Resolved

 – Reverted and semi-p's

Anon 68.236.58.232 appears to be part of an organized (multi-IP) campaign to continually vandalize Dirtbag. Latest diff [38] includes un-WP:CIVIL edits and edit summary. Request an administrator's intervention. -- Gridlock Joe 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the IP editor and semi'd the page for 48 hours. Hopefully they'll lose interest by then, but feel free to warn any future vandals and report them to WP:AIV. - auburnpilot talk 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sl84

Resolved

Sl84 (talk · contribs) has issued a borderline death threat against me here. Could someone look into this and perhaps be a neutral third party to issue a sternly worded warning? --Yamla 19:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone took care of it already.  :) --Yamla 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451

I've endured harassment from this user for many months now, but User:Fahrenheit451 shows no signs of letting up the nonstop needling. No matter what or where I post, it's a given that User:Fahrenheit451 will show up (often immediately) and post a highly insulting, ridiculing, unhelpful and often unrelated-to-matter-at-hand tirade against me. He's done similar baiting with other editors such as User:Leocomix and User:Justanother as well, apparently hoping to incite them to lose their temper. His most recent examples are the deliberate mess he's made of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics and here: [39] [40] and there are dozens more on his contributions page. I just want him to leave me alone. Some of his remarks I find to be disturbingly subtly sexual in their undertone, such as calling me "Trixi", referring to my "sticky hands" and talking about "handling" me. wikipediatrix 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - above)I have reviewed a sample of wikipediatrix's contributions and agree that Fahrenheit451 does indeed jump in on discussions, taking an opposing stance together with overfamiliar language (including abbreviations of wikipediatrix's name which she has requested he not do). I believe a first and only warning would suffice initially, but would like the opinion of another party as well as wikipediatrix's thoughts. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, Wikipediatrix and I have been on opposing content sides of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia, namely those that are scientology-related. She or he, is purposely taking words and phrases I have made out of context in a effort to solve what she sees as a problem, by means other than by editing. I will provide the diffs to show the context in the next paragraph.--Fahrenheit451 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"sticky little hands"--Fahrenheit451 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of "Trixi"--Fahrenheit451 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

mention of "Trixi"--Fahrenheit451 23:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"handling" meaning and context--Fahrenheit451 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed wikipediatrix's recent contrib history. I can provide diffs where she requested you not to use familiar username abbrevations, subsequent diffs where you did not, and further diffs where you reverted to referring to her as "trix(i)". I would also invite a third party to review whether the tone or content of your responses to her are appropriate. In the meantime I very strongly suggest that you use extremely neutral language and refer only to the topic in hand in those matters you feel you have a point to make. Whatever your motives for your use of language (and I AGF that you do not intend to distress) you must, per WP:CIVIL, moderate it as requested. LessHeard vanU 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, as proven by my typo above I am needing my sleep. Can another person look over this? LessHeard vanU 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, regardless of whether or not Wikipediatrix is correct in her interpretation of your comments as having any sexual tone, it's obvious that they're bothersome and that she does not appreciate the nicknames. So stop doing it. If someone requests not to be referred to by a nickname, don't. If the tone of your comments is bothering someone, tone them down. If it doesn't bother you, that's great, but that doesn't make that true of everyone, and you're needlessly inflaming the situation. Continuing to poke at someone in a way you know they dislike is highly uncivil and a form of harassment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I have been editing WP for about 2 1/2 years and developed quite a bit of tolerance for other views as an editor of scientology-related articles. I really understand on the topic of wikipediatrix's alleged "sensitivity" to nicknames. I will use wpd or wpx instead. If that offends him/her, then I guess the matter will escalate. In any case, we are dealing with editors who do not and cannot WP:AGF because the practice of Fair Game (Scientology) proscribes how "the enemy", who they call Suppressive persons, are to be "handled". I can promise you that wikipediatrix will create some other issue to use as a complaint after this. The basic issue is not resolvable due to the dogma that cofs-directed editors are operating on. --Fahrenheit451 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of "do not use abbreviations of the editors username", and "do not use them in a familiar manner" are you having difficulty understanding? If you wish I could enforce a period of contemplation by blocking you until there is some indication that you understand that that you are required to abide by wikipediatrix's requests per WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. I would also point out that even mentioning the context of the subject matter that wikipediatrix is in dispute with you as a possible excuse for your behaviour in an example of extreme bad faith on your part. Simply put, it is not acceptable to contribute in such a manner to annoy, scare, insult or otherwise harass another editor. Kindly stop doing so. Now. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you see what I mean? He can't even help himself from doing it right here in front of everyone. Not only was "him/her" unnecessary, he's talking Scientology mumbo-jumbo about "Fair Game" and "cofs-directed editors", making the mistaken assumption that I must be a Scientologist (as if there's anything wrong with that), simply because I disagree with his excessively anti-Scientology edits. This is nuts, nothing short of just nuts. (In point of fact, if you check contribs, I'm the creator of many of the strongest critical-of-Scientology articles of Wikipedia!) I don't know what to do about this person and his crusade, I just want this person to leave me out of it. wikipediatrix 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WPD, What DO you mean? You say that I "can't even help myself from doing" WHAT "in front of everyone"? On the "him/her", I don't know your gender for a fact. WPD, I find your remarks here and elsewhere to be quite insulting, uncivil, and harassing. You point one finger at me, and three at yourself. --Fahrenheit451 02:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"regardless of whether or not Wikipediatrix is correct in her interpretation of your comments as having any sexual tone," - it is clear enough that she is not _correct_ - I think the issue here is whether she is _sincere_ in that interpretation: she made a very severe accusation, and initially with no diffs so people could not see the context for themselves. --Random832 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see how they could conceivably be interpreted that way, though I don't believe that they genuinely were meant that way. If I thought someone were actually engaging in some form of sexual harassment here, there'd already have been a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding evidence for the claims of stalking is fairly easy; you look at the complainants recent contrib history, click on some of the talkpage edits, and note who responds to each edit. You then note the context of the responses, and whether they address the specific points raised, and the tone and language used. I did that. That, and the responses by Fahrenheit451 above, have lead me to issue him with a WP:NPA warning, together with suggestions how he might moderate his behaviour. Should Fahrenheit451 refuse to agree to act according to WP:CIVIL, then the claim of stalking may be proven. LessHeard vanU 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics

This bears looking at and is indicative of Fahrenheit451's ongoing harassment and disruption of process. We are talking someone with a 2-1/2 year history here. F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists that attacked me when I first started editing here one year ago. In fact, I credit him with "showing me the ropes" as to how WP:PA baiting is done.

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics:

*Comment to the closing admin This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:HARASS:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. [emphasis added]

--Justanother 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Justanother's false accusations and personal attacks

Justanother personally attacks me by characterising me as "F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists". My only objection to cofs-directed editors is the editing practices where they apply the human rights violating Fair Game (Scientology) practice by repeated violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and the use of tendentious editing such as the forementioned AfD. There are admins on Wikipedia who are familiar with their tactics. By the way, Justanother is misinforming about my edit history: For the first six months, I edited many different articles and was not even interested in Scn articles until I observed how those editors repeatedly attempted to bully other editors and whitewash verifiable, reliable content. Justanother's false complaint is posted to harass and spread misinformation as I am considered Fair Game (Scientology).--Fahrenheit451 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We may have a double standard at work here as Justanother refered to wikipediatrix as "trix" here:[41]. If the term is offensive from me, it should be offensive from everyone else as well.--Fahrenheit451 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't what is talked about here but using the ID 'Fahrenheit451' against the rules of copywriter infringement? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Helena Kobrin may view it as such. :-) --Fahrenheit451 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix requested that you did not refer to her in that manner, as it indicated a familiarity which she found unacceptable within the context of your comments. How she chooses to conduct herself with other editors is (as you pointed out regarding your own choices) entirely her own business. LessHeard vanU 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Claim of violation of privacy (not mine)

Can an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Violation_of_privacy? A quick check of the article history and talk page reveals what the subject of the article is complaining about. THF 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The sun has over 7 million reads. I would tend to argue that if something has appeared there wikipedia is not your major worry.Geni 00:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_28.Geni 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RJ CG disrupting Estonia related articles, again

User:RJ CG has been edit warring at Rein Lang, reverting against concensus three times in the space of 30 minutes [42], [43], [44], within hours after coming off his earlier 48 hour block [45] for for edit warring another Estonia related article Bronze Soldier. He was previously blocked for tedious editing [46] on another Estonia related article Russo-Estonian relations. He appears to be obsessed with disrupting Estonia related articles [47] and has been warned repeatedly on his talkpage, the latest here: [48], but the message doesn't appear to be getting through, can someone give hime a longer block to cool off a bit and think about his behaviour. Martintg 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please admins. Deal w/ this case and use your tools or whatever you see fit. I was busy explaining RJ CG about his first block for the same behaviour and i won't be explaining myself everytime to make every edit warrior happy. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway - violations of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:3RR all rolled into one...

User 78.86.0.134 (who also comes under the username 'Danielthesaint', as evident by the fact that both IP and account are used interchangeably in the situation) has repeatedly edited the Docklands Light Railway article to include original research which is not sourced, thus breaking WP:V and WP:OR. This has all been pointed out on the talk page, by both myself and a third opinion. The user has blatently ignored this, violated WP:3RR a couple of times, and still insists on having the article his way. He has also maxed out his warnings. I'd love to keep changing it to the correctly sourced way, but I don't particularly want to break WP:3RR myself ;). Any admin assistance would be great. _TheIslander 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have lodged a report at AN3 about this user's 3RR violation. Adrian M. H. 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And he has reappeared with an alternate IP address. 149.254.192.192 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

this what happens when you give power to a prick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serco dlr (talk • contribs) 21:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin that finds this - hope I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, but just to make it crystal clear, the above is almost certainly a sock of Danielthesaint. _TheIslander 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

...as is User: Sinex - see personal attacks on my talk and user pages. _TheIslander 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:I pity this monster man unkind not has created this page as a redirect to the nonsense page of Edfgdfgdfg. Has also moved Super Smash Bros. Brawl to that same nonsense page. Thanos6 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Antandrus (talk · contribs). I'm trying to fix the history split. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Something's up with all the deletion/restore/move work because its not allowing me to revert back to the original version. Anyone care to see if they can patch this up? (Edit conflict:I was typing this post as you submitted that comment darn :P)¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's because several of us are trying to fix it simultaneously? Right now the history for Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl is still not available; it's still showing as deleted revisions for Talk:Edfgdfgdfg. Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Argh, sorry. Persian Poet Gal's just fixed the Talk history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the talk history is still reflecting only the vandal edits. Ryulong's trying to repair it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Ryulong fixed it, but there's a database lag in the history. I'm staying out of the way for a bit. 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything's fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia RfAr

ResolvedHe has been unblocked by Fred Viridae^Talk 05:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He (Miltopia (talk · contribs)) was apparently blocked by Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a sock of BLu Aardvark,then he initiated an RfAr on user talk:128.227.195.36. I posted it to RfAr on his behalf. Is this acceptable? —Crazytales (t.) 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. -- John Reaves 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, methinks. Yikes... If Miltopia was really a sock, that has a lot of far-reaching implications. (Begin the WikiDrama!) But I'm not sure exactly how Fred reached that conclusion (although there had been suspicion about Miltopia in the past.) We'll just have to wait and see. Grandmasterka 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred has unblocked him, calling his original block a mistake. Apparently Blu Aardvark has been claiming off-wiki that he is Miltopia. Corvus cornix 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations at Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising

User:Capricornis has been inserting material which is clearly not free from various websites, from which he quotes large portions. He erased the entire existing article, replacing it with some polemic essay and keeps reinstating his own text despite multiple warnings. Mr. Neutron 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

-- response by capricornis -- I might be new to wikipedia, and have not engaged in as many wars as Mr. Neutron, so I don't know how to abuse the system as well as he does, but I can read the rules well, and I have not broken any of them. I changed a blurb, not an article, Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which originally contained very little information about the actual event into a well-written, relevant piece of information, which takes no sides, while the original Mr. Neutron's article seems to have been more concerned about proving 'Bulgarianism' than talking about the event itself. The note on the flag and the flag itself I removed because nowhere it is shown how that image relates to the event, except in the caption, which could have been anything.

I might have at one time included verbatim text from websites, even with a proper quotations, but since reading wikipedia policies more carefully, I have removed that text and replaced it with original writing, not original research. The new essay is anything but polemic, it is objective and neutral, intentionally omitting controversial issues like ethnicity of the population and the leaders of the uprising. On the contrary, the main point of the previous article, by Mr. Neutron, seems to have been proving 'Bulgarianism' of the such, relegating the event of the uprising to a secondary importance.

I have repeateadly tried to talk sense with Mr.Neutron, but he has refused any communication, to the extent that he immediatelly undoes any talks I leave on his personal talk page (check his history)

I am open to constructive discussion and consensus.

thank you

btw, he has been spam reporting me to various boards in hope that some busy admin would take his side. please look at this contrib history for further details.

Capricornis 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Bsharvy

Hello everyone. If anyone would like to take a look at Bsharvy's contributions page you will see that his account was made for the single purpose of ruining a now protected page. This user constantly edit wars, argues repeatedly with numerous editors and refuses to 'get to the point' and simply repeats himself over and over on the talk pages while at the same time insulting other users (even the ones he got their attn through a RFC). He has been rude to editors and admins, and even removes admin warning from his talk pages to try to make himself look pristine, and in to my personal knowledge even engaged in an attack campaign against a former user who was a true professional here in WP (who has since left). It also seems that if he can't convince people on the talk pages of the article he tries to either 1) vandalize their pages 2) be as rude as possible to them and try to get them to leave 3) tries to subvert the rules of WP to try to get them blocked or 4) just edit wars with everyone till getting blocked, as a result of this user several other editors have been unable to fix/correct the page on hiroshima and nagasaki. He has no knowledge of the content of the page and repeatedly insults the few experts we had editing the page (myself included). Can't we do anything about this type of editer? I fail to see how pages that require a technical understanding of a topic will survive (w/o being a joke to everyone outside wp) if editers like User:Bsharvy are allowed to remain. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I notified the user of this discussion. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The one and only example of what he means by "attack" and "disruptive" is the claim I am about to make: Virtually everything he says above is dishonest. I have said several times that an editor (Gtadoc, of whom the above editor is probably a sockpuppet) is dishonest. Accusations of dishonesty should be a last resort. We always assume good faith, so several (perceived) mistakes are not cause for accusations of dishonesty. However, sometimes uncertainty about motives changes into near-certainty, and assumptions of good faith are untenable. That is the case for editor Gtadoc and what appears to be his sockpuppet, Allgoodnamesalreadytaken. His distortion (and dishonesty) here is the result of my starting a sockpuppet inquiry (he deleted the sockpuppet notice from his User page, then complained here about deleting warnings from User pages....)Bsharvy 04:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read his contribs (which I don't think he knows you can do...lol...) you will see that everything I said is true, for instance he attacks editors (Renis, eric, daniel case, and my collegue, whom he mentions and as already mentioned since he is unable to get his way on the one page he is trying to ruin he accuses me and others of random/made up things). Not to mention (I like the word mention...lol), it also appears that he edited some user pages and then tried to accuse others of doing so (though I'm guessing at that, as he says he is "in asia" and the last hit on the IP trace makes it to australia before hitting "unknown"s.) He's gotten into arguments or edit wars with just about everyone who was involved with that page, and I'm pretty certain since his account is a single purpose account that its sole purpose is to be disruptive. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I should make a new section...I would like User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken to be given some sort of instruction about his behavior. I put a sockpuppet notice on his User page (which provoked this complaint here). The sockpuppet notice was specified in WP instructions for reporting suspected sockpuppetry. He responded by slapping an (unsigned) vandalism tag on my Talk page threatening to have me blocked, and deleting the sockpuppet notice. I pointed him to the instructions about not removing the notice for ten days, and restored it; he immediately slapped another (unsigned) vandalism template on my Talk page. User_talk:Bsharvy Incidentally, it is now almost certain that he and Gtadoc are the same person, as they have a particular spelling mistake in common, in addition to all the other similarities. See the sockpuppet discussion for more, slightly incomprehensible, personal attacks: [49] Bsharvy 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now almost certain that user:Bsharvy is engaged in wikistalking one of my friends and collegues. Since this complaint is about his disruptive behavior on a particular page (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)...but since he wants to wave the red herring I'll add wikistalking, vandalism, and failure to abide by one of the cardinal rules (heh) of WP found here < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick> . Additionally, I'd like to add that he's been making complaints about user:gtadoc , in particular an IP address in South Asia (where Bsharvy is) made a comment on his talk page and plagerised a signature of an admin and then accused him of doing it long after he had already left WP. (hmm..better spellcheck all that, I'm sure I spelled at least one thing wrong...). Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hakozen (2nd)

The user just came back from his second block and made a request to 50+ users something in Turkish [50]. One of them SONSAVASCI has responded and is reverting articles in favor or Hakozen[51]. I warned him to stop it, I got this uncivil comment back [52] --VartanM 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think I figured it out...might have something to do with those versions mentioning the "Armenian Genocide." I will revert and leave a note. Edit: I left a note on both SONVASASCI's and Hakozen's talk page because Hakozen immediately made this edit after the talk page requests (it once more is a removal about the Armenian Genocide).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely does. Since he decided to write in Turkish, I can't read it -- but it definitely mentions "Armenian" and in a non-supportive manner, from my machine translation. This user is getting out of control; at this point, I'm supportive of a long block until he realizes his conduct is unacceptable. --Haemo 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks Turkish provide a translation? If the message is to the effect of "go forth and push POV", I also support a lengthy block of Hakozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It certaintly looks to be [53]. Not quite an accurate translation, but it's quite blatantly obvious he's asking people to unite together to do something, as the translation says something along the lines that the more people involved and the more organized they are, the more powerful they are. I would support an indefinite block for Hakozen just for being so blatantly disruptive, and reverting all of the user's edits. We really shouldn't deal with this sort of POV pushing crap and should nip it in the bud. The same for Sonsavasci as this looks to be a simple case of meatpuppetry. Cowman109^Talk 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Agenda warring. I see violations of CANVAS, NPOV, CIVIL, and NPA, just in the above set of links. That's enough for a VERY long block for Hakozen. Choosing to be a meatpuppet means a good long block for SONSAVASCI as well. Any OTHER editors who 'pick up the torch' should also suffer equal blocks, if not harsher in light of the response to the first one. ThuranX 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Ryulong blocked him and started reverting his canvassing, so I guess that settles that. What about SONSAVASCI, though? I'm hesitant to block him immediately as he's not the one calling for an all out war on editing.. Cowman109^Talk 06:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Bluntly, what about it? 'Just followin orders' isn't really ever a great excuse for doing what you know is wrong. I'd say a week to prevent him from' caryying on in the face of anti-turkish sentiment' or some other rationalization he might concoct to validate his actions. ThuranX 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Has SONSAVASCI been editing in response to the message, or not? If they are continuing to edit as previously - which may or may not appear sympathetic to the content of the message - then they should not be blocked. While "following orders" is no reason to avoid a block, "receiving orders" is no reason to apply one. LessHeard vanU 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not Hakozen (2nd). Wikipedia is a "free encylopedia" and I am free to make changes on it. If you want your pages to be not editable, then use a free BLOG. I didn't violate 3RR or any other rules, not yet.... Requesting for 1 week block? LOL... There are things you really need to learn about wikipedia... I am working on a subpage about my recent reverts, which I prefer to call, reverting the sneaky vandalism. --SONSAVASCI 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this where I can say "I told you so"? Corvus cornix 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if you're willing to make it a duet. Block SONSAVASCI for his lousy anti-consensus attitude and hostile essay which attempts to incriminate ALL editors as vandals for maintaining watchlists and keeping an eye on 'our ' (no WP:OWN implied) articles. ThuranX 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider this subpage created by SONSAVASCI a personal attack against me, since I was the one who reported his behavior. Here is a quote from the essay "they are so sneaky that, after you reverted the sneaky vandalism they call you Vandal and ask Admins to punish you." I never called him vandal, was I wrong to report him? VartanM 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:82.44.212.202

The above user keeps removing part of the text in the The Cure without giving reasons despite repeated requests to do so. If you look at the user's contributions page it would appear they log on only to edit this article. I would be grateful if a block could be put on the IP address so that the user would need to register and may be more inclined to give reasons for removing the text. Thanks -- JD554 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, I've spotted the full procedure for warnings etc. Cheers anyway -- JD554 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious socks in use by User:Disturbedrcool1

Resolved

User:Disturbedrcool1 had been vandalising Chaos Space Marines by introducing incorrect information, and was given a number of warnings for this; exactly the same information was then introduced by a number of puppets, some of which have been blocked but one, User:The Immortal Lord is continuing. Blocking this obvious puppet account was declined at WP:ANI because no warnings had been given. Could another administrator please review this decision and take appropriate action? Cheers --Pak21 10:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for info, I removed User:The Immortal Lord from WP:AIV as no final warnings or any warnings had been given. It is, in my opinion, not sufficient to put a report on AIV accusing an editor of socpuppetry, without giving evidence and/or expecting us to pick out similiaries between editing patterns, hence the reason I put in the edit summary suggest WP:SSP. It is stated clearly here If you suspect someone of sockpuppetry file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV. A link to the sockpuppetry report should be included in the reason for reporting.. Without evidence this, in my opinion, does not constitute obvious. Regards ^Khukri 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The report on AIV included a link to both User:Disturbedrcool1, which links to the list of suspected puppets, which include the already blocked User:Immortal lord 00 and User:Immortallord, whose entire contributions are making exactly the same edit as User:The Immortal Lord, and Chaos Space Marines, where this clear pattern of edits can be seen in the history. I don't see how it can get much more obvious than that. --Pak21 11:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Pak21 on this one - it's completely obvious that this is the same person again - just the "orginality" in the names of the vandal should be obvious. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I will block all of these accounts. These are obvious socks and should be blocked indefinitely. I'll close the SSP discussion accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Help us! We're drowning!

Can someone please take a look at WP:UAA? We're up to our necks in backlog! --lucid 10:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now now, it's simply a few usernames that are doing little or no harm. Rushing to block them or remove them from a list isn't really on, they could be legitimate users having picked the name of their favorite band or some such. Just work through them nice and slowly, remembering there's another user probably quite like you or me at the other end of the username. Nick 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether they're violations or not, the point is that we have a six hour long backlog, not to mention a backlog that's about three or four times the norm. They need to be dealt with. On a side note, matching the name of a company or group is explicitly disallowed even if you aren't promoting them, both because of trademarks and just being inappropriate. I don't see any names on that list that aren't a blatant WP:UN vio, but again, that's not the point --lucid 11:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Six hours, while certainly unusual for UAA, is hardly the end of the world. Unless the editors are actively editing (in which case they could probably be taken to AIV, depending on their edits), it's not a true problem. Breathe in, breathe out. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude... we have a more-than-a-month-long backlog at WP:PUI, go there, not WP:UAA. >_< --Iamunknown 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user

I have received the following message on my talk page:

---

== Sockpuppetry ==

Dear Mike Rosoft,

I write here just to inform you that User:Green Owl (whom you briefly blocked) is a sockpuppet of an infamous wikipest accostumed to stalk wikiprojects with multiple accounts - Here is known also as User:Flavio.brandani and User:succhiacazzo). His modus operandi shown here ("it was my brother") is an old trick of his - another one is a blatant melodramatic selfaccusation and promise of repentance. Obviously you don't have to blindly believe me, on it.wiki our GoodFaith created such damage that we are monitoring his recurrent reincarnations, and more than a year after his infinite ban we collected suspect and evidence which led to this. This user (one month ago we proved that User:Flavio.brandani and were the same user) has currently the following list of sockpuppets around the wikiworld.

Just for your awareness... - εΔω (but in case of doubt ask to Jollyroger too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbiliusMagister (talk • contribs) 08:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

---

Mike Rosoft 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered part III

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

i've totally exhausted my patience on this one. what exactly am I supposed to do with this case?

"User:Jaakobou you've been blocked before for just this kind of outrageous harrassment of people on their TalkPages." [sic]

this is yet another case of personal attacks and incivility by said user after he's already managed to repeatedly accuse me for being a war criminal and almost received a full community ban for a history of improper activity and excessively soapbox behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The repartee between User:Jaakobou and User:PalestineRemembered notwithstanding, User:PalestineRemembered needs to have a mentor supplied or the WP:CSN discussion needs to be readdressed. See WP:AN and Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive11. -- Avi 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. You're arguing that PalRem needs sanction for criticizing your past history on his own talk page... and then to support your argument you're listing everything negative you can find in PalRem's past history on the most public forum you can find. Lovely. Eleland 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you directing your comments at Jaakobou or me? -- Avi 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, why do you keep encouraging him? have you taken the time to study this case he keeps accusing me of harassing other editors over? how many times do you think i should explain to him that he's misreading the case, so that he should get the point and stop accusing me of something false? why is he accusing me of anything, breaking WP:NPA, when i am placing a full explanation about a blind revert he had made? is it proper for an editor who's under review to repeat false accusations and add that "If there was anything worthwhile in your edits then I'd be astonished" ?

p.s. you are well aware of his recent activity on the Battle of Jenin talk page so i'm confused by the way you misread this case/statement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:PalestineRemembered

User:Jaakobou has a long record of harrassing people on their TalkPages - he's obviously decided I'm the next easy touch to be bullied. He's come over to my TalkPage with his nonsense from an article's TalkPage, and the words he quotes are from my own TalkPage, an extremely polite version of the finger.

Two admins who got sick of his behaviour in April took him to this AN/I and he was apparently blocked for it. See also [54] and [55], all from the same period. These latter exchanges involve editors who are careful and productive - and yet Jaakobou has been linking to attack sites on one of them. Jaakobou makes ridiculous accusations against me, but is himself guilty of serious disruption. Many people would think his general behaviour and attitude to other editors is far worse than mine - and that the name of his game is provocation.

I've discovered two things recently that would probably entitle me to go over to Jaakobou's TalkPage and retaliate, things that actually do belong on an editors TalkPage (but I refuse to lower myself to Jaakobou's level). It seems he made a ludicrous sock-puppet allegation against another editor in excellent standing, citing me as possibly being involved, but without bothering to tell me. And he's been deleting material presented by other editors at Talk:Battle of Jenin, material that he'd invited himself. The particular article in question is in a terrible shape, and it's down to ownership by himself and a small clutch of other editors.

One of the editors he's aligned with is currently blocked for edit-warring after promising not to do so and running two sock-puppets in clearly abusive ways - when Jaakobou accuses me of having a Mentor who turned out to be a sock-puppet, please note what company he keeps of his own free choice. (Fortunately, User:Specialjane was never a mentor - otherwise he'd realy have fun!).

Naturally, I do not intend to escalate this disruption and retaliate in any fashion, but I am waiting for the community to announce that they're sick of Jaakobou and that his disruption in articles, in Talk and on people's TalkPages has to stop. I'm not aware he does any good to any articles, and clearly does a lot of harm to some of them. His behaviour drives numerous good editors away, here are the exasperated responses of just two of them [56] and [57]. PalestineRemembered 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

User:68.153.118.128

Resolved

Hi. I'm not exactly sure where to request a block for an IP, but I think this is it. User talk:68.153.118.128 has been blocked since August 13, after that expired today, he has gone on another vandalizing rampage. I think he needs to be blocked again. Paragon12321 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

all the wikipedia vandalism related information is listed here, if you need further assistance, feel free to ask. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem user

Resolved

Can others please have a look over Buzybeez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been whitewashing an article on an unaccredited medical school. This article has a chequered history replete with vicious attacks by its supporters on those seeking to keep it neutral. I'm not really active right now, as you may know. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've placed Buzybeez on 1RR probation for being a disruptive, edit-warring single-purpose account (virtually all the account's edits of any substance have been to the St Christopher article). This is in accordance with the directive to restrain single-purpose agenda-driven accounts on this article put forward by ArbCom. If Buzybeez goes over 1 revert per 24 hours, he can be warned; if he doesn't self-revert, then blocked. Feedback welcome, but there has been far too much nonsense from single-purpose accounts on this article in the past, as exemplified by the ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickvaughn trying to hide 3RR violation

User in 3RR violation deleted report of violations from the 3RR noticeboard after deleting 3RR warning from own user page. If an admin could speak to the user about his actions then I would appreciate it. Darrenhusted 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason, to report the behaviour of this person. He has violated 3RR as evidenced by the report on that board. More serious is that he first deleted the report, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=154186675] and then returned to falsify it [58]. Other actions he's taken just today is to insult other users on their talk pages and removed valid comments from his own talk page. JdeJ 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Adjustable gastric band spammer

Hi can you please do me a favor and look at Adjustable gastric band ?

Someone has been repeatedly adding this to the links section and it is just a junkmail page. I have been trying to police it but they have responded by stepped up the frequency of their efforts.

The IP seems to be: 70.155.120.130

They link to www.weightlossbydoctors-DOT-com/lapbandinfo.php

Thanks and please let me know if I can provide any more info.

Jambus 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article, which will stop the IP(s) adding links. Couldn't see any good edits from IPs so no big loss. It's easier then blocking the IP, as there seems to be more than one being used. Neil ム 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This kind of report is best sent to our anti-spam team: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Good job fighting this! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible new SummerThunder sock (long-term abuse case)

Before I start a case at SSP, I'd like to know if anyone else shares my suspicions about a particular account. Tastetrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is starting to bear a resemblance to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. The account shows the same combination of interests in the People's Republic of China (particularly the PLA and censorship issues) and the University of California, Riverside (here s/he is removing the semi-protection template put up in the wake of the last SummerThunder attack on the UCR article). The account's username is similarly constructed to the SummerThunder's most recent, post- "0cDxxxx" socks. The user is also showing the same kinds of word-choices and immediately-confrontational style on Talk pages (see User talk:El C#what is wrong?). Am I just seeing things, or is there really something there? Is this account quacking? --Dynaflow babble 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I saw the edits to the UCR and History of UCR articles. Nothing at all conclusive IMHO but enough to make me wonder... --ElKevbo 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to go off to work now and may not be able to file an SSP report until tomorrow. Can you or someone else familiar with the SummerThunder problem-user watch this thing until I get back? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Inspector Lee 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like C.Fred already got one of them: User_talk:Bastrain. Inspector Lee 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be another one here: Sxme12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Inspector Lee 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot like him. Here's that user doing the exact same thing to the Tank Man article that the user I reported did to the UC Riverside article. Someone with sysop powers should probably look into this now. My fear is that SummerThunder is "aging" an army of sockpuppets to go on another one of his multi-account, dynamic-IP rampages again without having to worry about being stopped by his favorite articles' semi-protected statuses. It would be nice to nip this in the bud.

I don't think an RFCU would yield useful results, because of SummerThunder's use of dynamic IPs, but these accounts are all starting to quack like ducks. It may soon be time for a judicious application of the banning bat. --Dynaflow babble 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another that has already been blocked as a SummerThunder sock, doing the same sort of thing: Poelmean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is definitely his MO, and here he is editing in his favorite subject, as per his LTA subpage. Can an administrator please get on this? Compare this now-blocked user's contribs to the other listed users' contribs. --Dynaflow babble 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He probably knows we're watching those accounts. At this point, I don't think they'll go active, but I'll probably be proven wrong. Inspector Lee 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Check: Maigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Inspector Lee 05:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

suspected ST sock user:Maigad currently revert warring on Religion in China Inspector Lee 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Need another admin to keep an eye on Zendik Farm

I have a POV warrior attempting to turn Zendik Farm into his own private indictment of that group. (He's probably a sock of an earlier POV warrior, but I have no independent verification of that.) Can another admin keep an eye on that article and respond appropriately? Thanks. - Jredmond 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. This user probably is a sock of a past pov pusher judging by the move logs. We have an admission, will block as a sock.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jredmond 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin needed fast - Cowboycaleb1 reverting edits at Sasquatch

The above user has reverted my edits several times, see here and here. Caleb is also clogging up Sasquatchs talkpage, see bottom few topics. He has also removed a sockpuppet template of User:Bobo54 several times, see here and here. Can someome block this user as it seems like he is just here to cause vandalism. Thanks in advance. Davnel03 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he's reverted my edit again, but with a sock... Davnel03 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He's reverted it AGAIN, can somebody please do something. Davnel03 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Both editors have been warned. I don't believe any further intervention is necessary. Sasquatch can handle further disruption on his own. Pascal.Tesson 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of Bouncehoper by Violetriga

Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Bouncehoper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three minutes because of "edit warring". These two are engaged in a long-standing dispute over the usage of "sophomore" in various articles, and as evident from their contributions, they have both engaged in mass revert warring over this issue (and Violetriga abused her admin rollback tool). Administrators shouldn't block editors with whom they are in dispute. And this block was for three minutes, which makes it look punitive, rather than preventative. Melsaran (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We discussed and agreed a WikiProject guideline at WP:MUSTARD. Bouncehoper systematically went through my contributions and undid all my edits despite that agreement. The block was a very short one to finally get him to discuss it rather than continuing the edit war and came after numerous messages asking him to stop on his talk page. It worked and we are now trying to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it only worked to scare the crap outta me. Was that the idea?

And as Violetriga has glossed over, I was making an effort to discuss, when she/he came onto my talk page and started getting crazy. I was only reverting their stuff because they were deeming it an "Americanism" and not bothering to link it, which would have been more beneficial than just deleting it and calling it something it's not.

Bouncehoper 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If he was blindly reverting he should certainly have been blocked briefly if that was the only way to get him to engage in discussion. It might have been a good idea to avoid even the appearance of personal involvement, by bringing the systematic reverts to the attention of other administrators who could discuss and take whatever action was considered necessary in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that

it would probably have been better to have an uninvolved admin to step in, but as it was happening at a fast pace I thought it appropriate to do it myself. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They were both blindly reverting across something like 30 articles today, and the same yesterday and last week. (90 or more reverts, but never 4 in one day, of course.) Blocking someone you are edit warring with is forbidden, even just to get their attention. Use of rollback in an edit war over content is forbidden. Edit warring over something as petty as the use of the word "sophomore" to indicate someone's second album shows poor judgement for an administrator. This is really inappropriate behavior for an admin. Thatcher131 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party. A block would be inappropriate if it were lengthy - this wasn't. Using rollback was acceptable, I feel, because my edit would only have served the same function and what he was doing was against our behaviour guideline (wikistalking). violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If as Thatcher131 says you were both reverting one another across multiple articles, well it's probably just a stroke of luck for you that nobody stepped in and blocked you both. That's very disruptive behavior, if Thatcher131 has it right, and saying "it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party" is missing the point. If the reverts happened often enough for someone to say "yesterday and last week" then that's too much warring. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid making generalizations here. 4 reverts in 24 hours is still a razor wire. Additionally, revert warring is also not allowed, true enough. But defining revert warring can only be done case by case. There are plenty of scenarios when Tony's example above ("yesterday and last week") does not constitute revert warring at all. It takes article-writing to be able to judge this reasonably (perhaps a suggestion?). --Irpen 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking means "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". Checking someone's contribs for the purpose of mass revert warring because you know that they do edits you disagree with is inappropriate behaviour, but not Wikistalking. As you both were engaged in that same dispute, you shouldn't have blocked him. You should have left the decision to another administrator (and I doubt that a block was justified, by the way). And yes, you didn't go anywhere near 3RR, but mass-reverting each other over tons of articles is disruptive as well. 3RR is not an entitlement, edit warring can still be disruptive when you don't violate it. Melsaran (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What Bouncehoper did was to follow me around the wiki, edit the same articles as me, with the intent of causing annoyance. He wikistalked. The block was not a punishment but an attempt to stop the edit war that he was creating - if I had blocked for longer then it would be a very different story. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was most likely not with the intent of causing annoyance, but because he was engaged in an editing dispute with you. I do in no way endorse his actions, nor do I endorse yours, but a block isn't the way to handle it. Melsaran (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the rollback (I freely confess I've used rollback in "content disputes" when others have reverted already and the user's points have been debunked on the talk page: that is, when it's trolling): I can live with the block, too - but edit warring over something so petty? I mean, for that, both users probably should be blocked for 24 hours or so, if only for outstanding silliness - am I serious? Maybe :) Come on, people, this is not save-the-wiki stuff - no one needs to edit war, it can wait a day or so. Moreschi ^Talk 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't been on for a few days, and decided to check my watchlist today. Suddenly, I get all this stuff from Violetriga. What the crap?

I'm sorry about the reverting action; if it's going to cause such a headache, I just won't bother. But I originally reverted a few days ago, because Violet had not bothered to link anything as discussed.

I think we've finally come to the point that Violet's been hoping for, in that, I honestly don't give a sh*t anymore about the stupid word. This all started with trying to prove a point about the use of it, and Violet's taken much further than I had ever imagined. Screw the word; I've got more important things in my life to worry about than what someone is doing to things I've edited on Wiki.
If you feel the need to block us, whatever. I'll pop off for a day, come back, and probably have forgotten. Just as long as Violet doesn't harass me anymore, I'm fine. I'm sick of this crap, and I want. it. done.
(and lol, y'all, I'm a chick.)
Bouncehoper 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rare, noble woman! Thou hast gained a sense of proportion, and art all the better for it. Perhaps we can all disengage - forgive and forget? Moreschi ^Talk 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel bad about all of this, though I can't understand the claims of harrassment. I believe it all stems from a misunderstanding of what we agreed as, to me, it clearly states that we should avoid the word where possible. As explained my edits were going along with that and I haven't touched the ones that are already linked. If you think we need a better wording then we should discuss it at WP:MUSTARD. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see in the current MOS(?) it says "...should be avoided where possible and linked to its definition at wiktionary:sophomore when used." I see that compromise as kind of "leave it where it is, and avoid using it further." At least, so far as editors are aware of this guideline. It seems to me the least change necessary would be to link instances where's it's currently in use (and unlinked), not remove them. In fact, I'm honestly not sure why it would go the other way. I'm quite confused here. --InkSplotch 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word has been much discussed with many people saying that we shouldn't use it. The current wording is a compromise and says that we should avoid it where possible. The articles I edited benefited from the change and, since "sophomore" wasn't linked in any of them it was appropriate to change it per this compromise. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Violetriga was correct to remove these instances of the word "sophomore." In fact, I believe that it's illogical to grandfather the linked instances, and that they (excepting any direct quotes) should be removed too. It makes far more sense to simply use the word "second" than to use a word requiring a dictionary link for many readers to understand.
I also believe, however, that Violetriga's use of the administrative rollback function and three-minute block of Bouncehoper were extremely inappropriate. —David Levy 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've no opinion on the content dispute itself (and plan to militantly remain that way). My confusion just stemmed from previous experience seeing style conflicts float over to AN/I. Compromise can be hard to come by, and when some elements are left "in-between" like that it's usually seemed to me to be less contentious to grandfather them in versus deleting things. Just an impression, for which I have no real facts. I'll just say it's obvious both sides are passionate about the project, which is great, but nothing is so urgent about this dispute that everyone can't step back and flesh out the compromise y'all worked so hard for in the first place. --InkSplotch 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Violetriga's block (de minimis or otherwise) while engaged in a dispute with the blocked user was not appropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in my typical position of agreeing with Newyorkbrad. I don't care what the justification, blocking a user with whom you are engaged in a content dispute is inappropriate. - Philippe | Talk 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can even call it a content dispute. It would be natural for anyone to have the some position on the matter as Violetriga, and still come to the conclusion of blocking the user. How many times has a blocking admin agreed with "the other side" when they blocked someone, but just didn't say anything about it? Does it make it any better then?

Lets say this, a user thinks that all articles should have the first word in the article in red print, and starts to do this to tons of articles, and doesn't stop when asked to. Could you not say that it is a content dispute with those that don't think the first word should be in red print? The nature of this dispute is being ignored in this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a user being disruptive and being blocked for three minutes. Maybe if the situation wasn't obvious, I could understand Violetriga stepping back and letting someone else handle it, but this is painfully straight forward, dispute or no dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment: 3 minute blocks are never unacceptable and contradict WP:BLOCK blatantly, WP:BLOCK#Recording in the block log. If a user is a habitual stalker and an edit-warrior he may have to be blocked all right but what happened serves exactly no purpose and causes aggravation. --Irpen 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken, but for the sake of good faith, I'll assume it's more of a cool-down block than one just to write in the block log. I still stand by my other point (above), but ignoring all that, yeah, the block on its own wasn't the best idea to deescalate the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I agree with Ned Scott that the nature of the dispute is relevant, but I'd still classify this one as an editing dispute in which the block should have been done by another admin or not at all. Still, probably enough said here, with the hope this won't recur. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 disrupting RfA

Hello. I'd like to have an uninvolved admin go over ther recent edits of Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs). He happens to be in a long-term conflict with WikipedianProlific (talk · contribs) and has been disrupting the latter's RfA despite my request for him to cool down [59] which he dismissed [60] because I supported the RfA [61]. He's now accusing WikipedianProlific of having meatpuppets [62] so I am tempted to block him but it's probably wiser to let another admin consider the problem and take appropriate action. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I also came across this editors attempt at gaming WikipedianProlific's RfA, which changed my first impression to support into a very firm support. I went to Cuddlyable3's talkpage to find that it had been cleared ("Clean up" is Cuddlyable3's preferred terminology) of any criticism, warnings or block notices. All within the rules, of course, but not indicative of someone whose main focus is working consensually to build an encyclopedia. I echo Pascal Tesson's request for a non-involved admin to look over the nature of Cuddlyable3's contributions.

I would comment that I have suggested to WikipediaProlific on his talkpage that I strike through Cuddlyable3's questions at the RfA, to no response as yet. LessHeard vanU 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:GoldenMean

Has three times removed well-sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, and after removing the footnote, added {{cn}}. Please tell him, someone, that this is not done.

• first removal
• second removal
• third removal, a direct revert.

This statement on my talk page is a falsehood; he has presented no evidence, only deleted it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While transferring this from WP:AN, I have received a conciliatory message, which may indicate that this revert-warring is merely stubbornness and inexperience. But I would like to know whether anyone else has had a similar problem; and I would appreciate the reminder. This is not a newbie; he's been editing for a year, and should know better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, this edit appears to indicate that his standard on these matters is not [[WP:V}} what he can imagine the Founding Fathers doing. They are verified as doing a lot of things he can't imagine; and the sources for this edit are a respected cultural historian and the American Dictionary of National Biography.

This sounds like a simple content issue. You should probably go towards dispute resolution to fix it. Pascal.Tesson 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

[63]. Corvus cornix 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked for 1 week by User:Alison. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral's sockpuppets

Resolved

I think I've found another of User:Phral's incarnations: Phrallus the Great (talk · contribs · count). Neranei (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Provide evidence at WP:SSP. Miranda 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the name? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As the user hasn't messed with anything, that's the only evidence. Should he be left alone until he disrupts something? Neranei (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock, consistent with other entries at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650. Blocked ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

SPA wikistalker

Resolved

SPA blocked. —Crazytales (t.) 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/TomCat111 has been stalking me, creating bogus sock templates, and impersonating me on a disproved sock case. I suppose an indef is in order, esp. because this user has no constructive edits, only stalking/impersonation and cruft.Bakaman 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Crazytales (t.) 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, might I add that was very quick.Bakaman 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Luck. I just happened to drop by ANI at that time. —Crazytales (t.) 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NOt sure that this counts as impersonation. I think he is just unaware of how to use templates. Impersonation there would make no sense: his point cannot credibly be expected to come from Bakasuprman, as he is accusing Bakasuprman of sockpuppetry, using Goldstein Orwell. Not that Goldstein Orwell is Bakasuprman's sockpuppet; it's Hkelkar, so the relationship is more subtle. Block's probably unjustified; The account isn't an SPA stalker,as he was trying to introduce information that Bakasuprman was reverting. May be someone else's sock, of course. Hornplease 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Puh-leez. Thats what impersonation is, pretending to be someone else. He was trying to make it look like I confessed to be goldstein orwell. Its quite obvious the only reason you voiced opposition to this ban is because the user is harassing me.Bakaman 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That may appear ridiculous to me, but if I'm wrong, then someone will tell me so. He certainly isn't harassing you, in particular, merely trying to introduce a quote sourced to the BJP website to that party's article and related articles on its parent organisation. He needs to have WP policy on quotes explained, not a random blocking. I notice you haven't bothered to explain your reverts. In any case, this is someone else's problem now, namely someone who can review the block and determine the level of justification. Hornplease 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've unblocked agreeing with hornplease. —Crazytales (t.) 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fresh eyes Please

Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) has for the last couple of days repeatedly made accusation that an Australian MP has been harassing him via the foundation. I checked with an uninvolved editor who has access to OTRS the user indicated that there isnt any emails there.

There is an email distrubuted via a mailing list that was in response to another editors personal approach to the MP offices when they saw the comment the MP made about Wikipedia but this doesnt mention the editor or any edit he's made, I'm happy to forward this to any admins who request it

I'd like for a fresh set of eyes to have a look at whats going on including the way he's wording editdiff summaries when he's requested to remove the information. Gnangarra 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the userpage needs to be selectively deleted at least because the allegations are made repeatedly in edit summaries, but Gnang and I have been dealing with this user for the last couple of days and it would be good to get someone uninvolved to review. Thanks guys, Sarah 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This really needs some input, the comments need to be looked at I agree with Sarah's suggestion. Gnangarra 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, looking through the relevant edits I can find no fault with the way Sarah and Gnangarra have handled this. Its rather an awkward situation as we're dealing with a good contributor. Nonetheless, per WP:BLP we really cannot have these sorts of unsubstantiated accusations about idenitifiable people - even outside article space. I endorse Gnangarra's speedy deletion (per CSD G10) of the subpage that laid out the accusations in full. The problem is now the revisions of his userpage that contain the accusations - which are also replicated in the edit summaries. I agree that those too should go. I am therefore going to delete the revisions of his userspace dated 10:49, 28 August 2007 UTC through to 01:02, 29 August 2007 UTC (17 revisions). I will leave a note on his talkpage explaining my reasons for the deletion and expressing my hope that he will be willing to overlook this matter and return to contributing in the positive manner he has previously done. WjBscribe 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Patrick to Dan Patrick (Sportscaster)‎ cut/paste move

I haven't looked too much into this, but it appears that someone felt the need to make a cut/paste move in order to create a disambiguation page. I was hoping someone with a mop might take a look at this before too many edits occur to either page. --Onorem♠Dil 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Proves my point that administratorness is more about the mop than the cudgel. —Crazytales (t.) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

With the little discussion I saw between the two editors involved, I don't think you were far off from needing both. Thanks for the quick fix. --Onorem♠Dil 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat

I stumbled on this diff from 67.70.202.19 LeadSongDog 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP is self-reverting, but I've blocked three days for trolling.--Chaser - T 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Was this the right place to bring the issue?LeadSongDog 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. WP:AIV will give you a faster response to any clear and blatant issue like this, but either is fine. Good job.--Chaser - T 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER blocked as sockpuppet of Lukas19

I have blocked single-purpose editor KarenAER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the previous account, KarenAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as sockpuppets of banned user Lukas19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Thulean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Now before you say "but the checkuser said unrelated", please hear me out.

First, note when KarenAE started editing: April 23, 2007. Lukas19's arbcom ban was enacted on the 4th of that month. From the first edit, it was apparent that this user was not new. KarenAE, later abandoned in favor of the account with "R", jumped right into discussion on Talk:White people, the favorite debating arena of Lukas19, and KarenAE's first mainspace edit was to restore deleted information. Nothing wrong with that on the face of the issue, but it displays an odd familiarity with the site to not only use indents and tildes, but the correct number, and to know how to restore information from the history. It wasn't even a revert, it was actually picking text out of a version of the page from days earlier. So we know he isn't a new editor.

Next, let's look at the stylistic and grammatical similarities. See these ellipsis? And these ones? And these? They were a common feature in the edit summaries of Lukas19. I found these five diffs after about 30 seconds of looking, not even using the search function: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. Next up, a rather interesting habit: where most people say "for example" or "e.g", we have Lukas19 using the interesting "for ex". And we have KarenAER doing it too. Finally, an interesting shared typo: meditation where he means "mediation." Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, right here. Same talk page even.

Just compare the edit histories of both of these accounts. The incivility, the soapboxing, the winding things up in bureaucracy to slow them down, and, most of all, the obsessive focus on race. All in all, I don't see a way these could be two people. Picaroon (t) 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I and other editors also noticed some of these things - it is good that you just went ahead and composed the comparison that had been brewing. Race-related articles are difficult to edit as it is - we don't need (or appreciate) rightly banned users returning to do the same disruption. Hopefully this will make working on those articles less stressful and more productive. Regards, The Behnam 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also here where I make a very similar case. All people who had had dealings with Lukas19 agreed at this time that this was Lukas19, but the admin decided that a checkuser was conclusive. I'd note that people do actually move house, go to college etc, so the fact that someone has changes their IP is not conclusive in my opinion. The similarities are so striking I'd have thought it was obvious, even making the same linguistic mistakes over and over again. The style and substance of arguments is also almost identical. Both Lukas19 and KarenAER told me I was "banned" from posting on "their" talk pages. I'm sure if one were to seriously check the edit histories of these four accounts even more evidence compelling evidence could be found. Alun 05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think sockpuppet blocks like this on very sketchy circumstantial evidence are used to silence opponents. These particular editors seem to be thinning the opposition to help create a false "consensus" on certain articles for their extremist political agendas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also on the surface of it Picaroon seems to be working on behalf of the afrocentric troll/vandal Muntuwandi. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations like that without some kind of evidence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is just as good as against Karen. Picaroon seems to be from the same region as Muntuwandi, mentions this issue of race, and is attacking one of Muntuwandi's prime opponents. Actually I'd say that is better evidence than is available against Karen. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Iron Chef

Hey. First off, my apologies if I posted this in the wrong place; I wasn't quite sure where to put it.

On to the issue. There's a user who keeps making the same edits over at Iron Chef. The user has done it once a day for a few days, though on Aug 27 he or she did it three times, but we failed to report it. The big issue, though, is that his IP keeps changing. The edits: on Aug 26 as 69.106.250.232, Aug 27 (first) as 69.107.4.229, Aug 27 (second) as 69.107.4.229, Aug 27 (third) as 69.106.255.164, and Aug 29 as 69.107.6.90. Is there anything that can be done, or do we just have to keep reverting and hope that the user gets bored? Is this issue worthy of a semi-protect, or is that a bit too much? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say just keep reverting, there isn't that much problematic activity and it looks like ordinary vandalism. If it gets worse, WP:RFPP will be the place to go. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Role account

Apparently JKDN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a role account[69], which AFAIK, are prohibited on en.WP. Leuko 04:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is a pragmatic opportunity to not enforce that policy so we can keep all the PR concentrated in one account (it only edits a single article).--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user talk page about COI but I don't think we need to take it any further than this. ugen64 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would always advise against enforcing policy for policy's sake. If the account proves disruptive, that's another story. Someguy1221 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)