I'm unsure of how to even handle this, and so I figure it's best to report the incident and let administrators make the call. Today I received this message from Kizor (talk · contribs · logs) in which I was summarily dressed down for my opinion on an AFD. I'm just about at a loss for words... for one, it's a blatant violation of WP:NPA ("your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content"). Secondly, it doesn't appear the editor in question applied the same inappropriate message to others who !voted the same way I did. Thirdly, the discussion is almost a month old (early October). Finally, he tries to "shame" me into !voting differently in future discussions. He may have said "without malice" at the bottom of the message, but the content speaks for itself. In my opinion it is wholly inappropriate; I've learned that tis usually better to let an uninvolved party handle the situation instead of exacerbating it by replying to the editor directly. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - I was unaware that Kizor is an administrator, however it doesn't really change my opinion on the matter. The only thing that changes is that I'm sure his intent was indeed without malice, but it certainly doesn't make his message any more appropriate. /Blaxthos 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, i just see no single sign of a personal attack in what you refer to. The tone is a bit harsh but i see nothing else which needs any admin action. The bottom line is, as you said, that he did it w/o malice. So? Is there any harassment or Wiki-stalking? No. Just let it go Blaxthos. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Notified Kizor in case he offers some more insight. I'm more curious why he said it was AFD"s"? Is there a larger history behind this? Either way, I don't really see a personal attack but will leave my mind open. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I said "AfDs" in reference to this one and future ones, we have no other history that I know of.
To address Blaxthos' points, For the second, the two other editors voting delete are casual users, not esteemed editors extremely active in AfDs, so their behaviour is a couple orders of magnitude less significant and I do not feel that there's a need to message them. For the third, it's three weeks old, which I consider recent; not that resent, but not history either. For the final one, any changes made to Blaxthos' behavior would've been a result of himself, agreeing with me. For the first one and the issue of civility, it was indeed written without malice (I checked before saving). There being no polite way to issue a dressing-down that one feels necessary, I went for open and straightforward. What do you guys think - too harsh? --Kizor 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found Kizor to be both friendly and fair and I believe that in any event he meant well and is doing a good job overall. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I believe what you've caught has entirely been my good side, too. --Kizor 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what's appeared below while I was slapping the above comment together, yes, apparently too harsh. Blaxthos makes a good point in his quotation of NPA. At least an "apparent" or "actions that would be indicative of" or something would've oriented things more to that direction, and on reflection everything from "haste" onwards is redundant. --Kizor 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
• USER:Kizor - "I'm deeply disappointed in your disregard for fairness and justice in your haste to destroy dislikable content..."

The title of the section he created is "Your behaviour in AfDs". He is directly calling judgement into question (because of an afd !vote, no less!)... how is that about content? Also, do you think it's a fair action, considering there were others who shared the same vote during that AFD? His comment implies that there are other (uncited) AFDs where my judgement is suspect. That is definitely fodder regarding the contributor. /Blaxthos 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Even more follow up - I've been around the block more than a few times, and would consider myself a fairly established and dedicated editor. I don't expect this thing to go anywhere, especially given that Kizor is an administrator. Do I think that his message is appropriate? Absolutely not. Do I think he should suffer for it? Not at all. I just wanted it on record somewhere, with someone, that perhaps such bullyish comments aren't the best things for our administrators to leave. I'm certainly entitled to my opinion that article foo is unencyclopedic/gamecruft, and I am not concerned with "impressing" or "disappointing" other editors (especially the staff). Take from that what you will... /Blaxthos 06:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he is an admin doesn't give him immunity so it is irrelevant. Yes. That's policy but you have to check the context. Some comments are more objective than subjective and vice-versa. He talks about your "disregard" and not "you". In fact, i am concerned more about the tone than any other thing.

Have you first tried to ask him about his comments or inform him about this report? It is always suggested that we inform users about reports so they can explain their actions. This is what Ricky's has volunteered to do. So at least let us hear him. -- <;font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Kizor's comment was a bit abrupt, but I'm really not seeing a personal attack. Instead, it seems that there's a good faith concern being expressed, even if it's being done in a slightly uncivil and/or uneven manner. I don't really see a need for administrator action here. Blaxthos, if you have a concern with Kizor's tone, I recommend bringing it up at Kizor's talkpage. A good faith "Hey, are you aware that this could be seen as a personal attack? Can you tone it down a little?" can have huge weight on someone's talkpage (especially to a new administrator who is probably under closer than usual scrutiny anyway). I'd recommend at least trying to work it out directly with him, rather than heading straight to ANI, which is really for more egregious cases of personal attacks than something like this. --Elonka 06:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So noted. For full disclosure, I only responded to his comment on my talk page, but I did reference this report in the reply. Due to past drama I usually try to avoid direct conflict with other editors, and often find that the involvement of third parties keeps things in perspective (as it did here). Thanks for taking the time to give your advice. /Blaxthos 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had a brand-new article blown out of the water before I even had a chance to finish it. It was about a new radio-controlled model, the HobbyZone Millennium PTU. There is no need to quote policy to me; I am well aware of it. However, it was tagged as being an advertisement, which it was not. Notablity was more than established in the text and I was in the process of adding external links when it was deleted. I had written many similar articles on other models under my previous username...and these may be in danger of being lost as well. One thing I learned early on as an administrator was to check the posting user's edit history. I made the mistake of not doing so on a number of occasions and got seven shades of hell for it. Believe me, I learned fast when it came to experienced editors. I would greatly appreciate it if this were restored. Thank you. I'm signing off for the night, so if anyone wishes to contact me, please do so on my userpage. --PMDrive1061 07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to make a post to WP:DRV, alongside the references that you want to add. This makes the undeletion requests easier to track as well as giving a more stable refernece on why the article should be kept (at least temporarly.) --Sigma 7 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's the appropriate place to discuss this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Those sorts of discussions used to be under the heading of "articles for undeletion." Thanks again for sending me in the right direction. I'll list it there right now. --PMDrive1061 07:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted articles don't need to go to DRV before recreation - the recreated article just needs to address the original reason for deletion, or it's still speediable. Natalie 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest building the article on a user sub-page first, and then copy/paste into the article when it's in a more finished state. That might help with the itchy trigger finger. Ronnotel 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarifiation to PMDrive. There is a difference between an 'advertisement' and 'written like an advertisement'. "Another unique feature is" and "which may be ordered through any hobby dealer which stocks the model" justify an {{advert}} tag. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I filed this BLP/N report, about an offsite call to arms in -'defending Huckabee's article from criticisms by the liberal elitists' a few days ago, it went unnoticed, I brought it here, it went unnoticed.

User:Huckabee08 appeared, blanked a few times [1] while obviously hyping his guy, then got blocked.

Now we have an established editor admitting to hunting for negative criticisms[2]. I spoke to him about this, suggesting he find other articles, or take time off, User_talk:Jmegill#Please_be_aware: but he's not listening, and continues to edit the page.

Since that offsite posting, there's been a lot more editors doing a lot more edits. some try to help, some are just interested in making Huckabee look like a prince. I'm requesting a week-long semi on the page to prevent any further agenda-warriors from joining the fray, and I'm requesting an admin please speak to Jmegill and Shogun108 about pushing their views on the article. (Shogun108 admitted to being a member of the HucksArmy group, and his only edits are to the article, making him a clear SPA.) ThuranX 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Annoynmous has ignored User:Erik's in giving the WP:OVERLINK guideline and Annoynmous has broken the 3RR with User:Erik, User:Bignole, and I and he/she refuses to yield to consensus. Reginmund 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to have only made one small edit to New Zealand. Are they using sock- and/or meatpuppets? Caknuck 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant User:Annoynmous. It appears another user has corrected it for me though. That was a metathesis on my part. Sorry for the confusion. The revert warrior is User:Annoynmous. Reginmund 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading the situation right, this seems to be an edit war over whether or not Orson Welles is wiki-linked in the infobox? It looks like all 3 of you have flown right over the 3RR for something extremely trivial. --VectorPotential^Talk 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3RR. That is why I reported the situation, but the situation concerns Annoynmous adhering to the guidelines and reverting three users' attempts to remove the overlinking. Reginmund 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My block of Miltopia.--chaser - t

Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370. Sorry if there's an edit conflict. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion was already at 50k+ I've moved it to a subpage - it may also be something we refer to in the future and having it on a separate page is therefore simpler. violet/riga (t) 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be wise to also include the Miltopia subpage link at the top of the Zscout subpage link, so it's all in one place ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just came here to do that. I considered merging these discussions there but they had already gone too far separately and such a move would be a little confusing. violet/riga (t) 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

After this request to cool down an edit war at History of the Linux kernel, User:Mike92591 got himself blocked for incivility for a week. Well, the week's up, and the very first thing he did was jump back in. Rather than get back into the same edit war again, and considering that I've got little intention of spending any future free time getting abused by this editor, what's the best course of action? Chris Cunningham 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One course of action is to read and reflect on WP:POT. Seems to me you've violated 3RR today as well as a month ago. Perhaps the best course of action is to remove yourself from these disputes, rather than engage in forum shopping. Isarig 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case this is a good-faith attempt to nip this stupid fight in the bud, which is why I haven't yet made any changes to the History of the Linux kernel article. What I'm not going to to is be bullied off of Wikipedia by trolls and POV-warriors. Speaking of which. Ahem. Chris Cunningham 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A good faith attempt would be to hash it out in the article's Talk page, seeking consensus. Another good faith attempt would be to ask for a third opinion. Yet another good faith attempt would be to open an RfC. If these don't work, you could try mediation. Surely a long time editor like you knows this, which is why it strikes me that this current report is more forum shopping for sanctions against an editor you have a content dispute with, than it is a good-faith attempt to nip an edit war in the bud. Isarig 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting in the firing line by editing the same talk pages as the user for the time being. I've never been through the third opinion process. My RFC experience is limited to a couple of comments. Had these helpful suggestions been provided in good faith I'd have been grateful. But no, they're provided to give me grief, yet again proving that your sanctioning was too lenient. Anyway, I'm not sure that it's designed for resolution of stupid personal politics (the issue isn't so much the content now as the manner in which the edits are proceeding), and I'd rather not have to go through the whole process of mediation / RfC if I can avoid it. Chris Cunningham 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So you come here declaring you have no intention of participating in any discussion on the talk page (which is, as you surely know, the first course of action to take when a content dispute arises), and don't want to try RfCs or mediation - what is it that you expect then? That the other party in the content dispute be sanctioned on your say-so? I've given you several options on how you may go about it, which you dismiss out of hand while acknowledging they are helpful, simply because you assume they were not made in good faith. Perhaps you should add WP:AGF to your reading list. Isarig 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute; it's a report of bad faith by an editor whose personal attacks on me have made me disinclined to engage him directly any further. AGF is not intended to address deliberate moves of provocation. That is also why there's no onus on me to assume good faith from this suggestion. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a content dispute. You have yourself described it as an edit war in your initial report, and anyone examining that page's history and it's Talk page can see that it is a dispute over the inclusion of material which you allege is 'pure FSF propaganda', and two other editors disagree with you. Disagreeing with you over content is not "bad faith". There is no excuse, of course, for the language Mike92591 used, and he was properly blocked for it, for a week. We must assume that he learned his lesson. If he hasn't, then surely he will quickly be blocked again. But to come here and ask for some preemptive sanction, in order to gain the upper hand in a clear content dipsute (in which you appear to be in the minority) is just as bad. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it forum shopping if this is the only page he's come to? Jd2718 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. It has nothing to do with the number of pages you come to, only to the selection of venue - in this case WP:ANI, vs. any of the other good faith ways to resolve content disputes. Isarig 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Isarig, way to assume bad faith. Chris Cunningham is reporting that a recently-blocked editor is behaving the same way as they were behaving which got them blocked, and all you can do is attack the person making, what to me, is a good faith request for review. Corvus cornix 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he wasn't behaving the same way at all. The editor was blocked for making uncivil comments. After his block expired, he has not made any uncivil comments, but returned to the article where he and another editor are having a content dispute with Chris Cunningham. If we are to assume good faith, the only way to proceed is to assume the editor learned his lesson from his week long block - and to properly engage him on the Talk page, or other DR procedures such as I've suggested to Chris above. Instead, we have Chris declaring that he will not participate in talk, does not want to try RfC or mediation, but wants some admin to "nip this in the bud" - which I interpret as a request that this editor be somehow sanctioned, for doing nothing other than disagreeing with Chris Cunningham - a serial edit warrior himself. Isarig 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Serial edit warrior" says the guy under community sanction for edit warring with sockpuppets, Isarig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.81.198 (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And just who's sock-puppet are you, Mr. 2nd-edit-on-wp-is-a-WP/ANI-comment? Isarig 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to say this. The irony in your suggesting that the OP of this thread read WP:POT is rich. No dog in the fight, I just read AN/I sometimes ... and I really enjoy irony! K. Scott Bailey 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So, getting back to the point, and ignoring Isarig's baiting for now: what's the recommended plan? Should I go back to the article talk and try to have this out again? I'm not particularly in the mood for what I see as the inevitable personal attacks and edit warring that this would produce. Again, the editor was blocked for refusing to use anything other than personal attacks on talk, and then for a rude unblock. If I thought discussion would work, I'd have gone back to discussing it already. Chris Cunningham 10:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should go back to the article talk and try to solve your content dispute. If the editor is uncivil or makes personal attacks, he will be blocked. There is no issue requiring admin intervention here at this point. Isarig 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just read his lengthy post on his blog. (If you find the link offensive, please remove it.) I've read the reasoning for the permaban and an appeal against it as well. In my view he was banned for his opinions, but even bad opinions are not a wikicrime. That's why I ask for his unbanning. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• We couldn't care less what his opinions are; we just have no reason to provide a platform for him to express them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Never heard of him before but on reading the sorry saga I agree with Jpgordon - there's a difference between "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Wikipedia welcomes trolls". Since this guy claims to hate us so much, why would he want to come back? — iridescent 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The project is better without such people. Let them have their fun at their blog, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should he be unbanned could I suggest that there be a brevity requirement that goes along with it? :) Anyway, who gives a crap if the Jews are in charge? So long as the info is available and editable I couldn't give a monkey's left teste if it's left-handed lesbian Moslem with AIDS and a limp that's in charge. ---- WebHamster 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's probably a Yahoo! Group for them. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My reaction. Now he has been blocked for more than one year (since 7 April 2006). I think it is enough and he should get the second chance. In my view only repeated vandals should be banned indefinetely. Other people should be judged by the ArbCom.

Another reason is that Robert Lindsay is probably his real name and the people with real name shall be treated better. They have no second chance to establish more productive account.

You may ask why I do a voluntary attorney to a man I don't know and with whom I never communicated. I have similar experience to him from another Wikimedia project.

—V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should people with a real name as their User name (even assuming it is their real name) be treated better than other people? Editors should be treated based on their behavior, not on their names, and it's clear from the blog and from the block, that this person (real name or not) is an anti-Semite with an axe to grind. Why should we want him to continue his venom here? If he should decide that he wants to come back and will modify his behavior, he can ask to be reinstated, he doesn't need someone else to speak for him. And may I ask you for something else, VZ, could you please cut down your excessive signature? Corvus cornix 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is emptying Category:Universities in mainland China. [3] Kowlooner 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a category and list for both 'mainland China' and 'People's republic of China'? isn't that sort of redundant? Or am I missing some subtle difference? ThuranX 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Schmucky's blanking of the section. I don't know what's going on here, but it doesn't look very legit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Instantnood can take a hike with his complaints. SchmuckyTheCat

I see no evidence that they are the same person. If you continue to mass revert again, I'm blocking you for disruption.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I got a message from Kowlooner which said the two are different, but I'm not sure in what way, as he specifically said that "Yes there is. In PRC legislations, regulations, directives, etc., mainland China does not include Hong Kong and Macau." I didn't think that PRC included those two either. I'm not sure what Schmucky's trying to do with that, but I do note that instead of clarifying Kowlooner, he just erased the comments off my talk page, which I generally take as rude in two ways: One, although no one 'owns' their talk, I've repeatedly read here (AN/I) and elsewhere that messing with others' talk pages shouldn't be casually done, and two, because it interferes with user to user communications. Now, can we get a simple, one para clarification about why there is or is not a difference between Mainland and PRC? ThuranX 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, That makes it twice, at least, that Schmucky has deleted another editors' comments, once here at AN/I, which I've seen before treated ESPECIALLY poorly, and on my talk. Is there a checkuser to actually support the contention that Kowlooner is banned? Further, now that it's been brought up, let's not drop it at the moment a CU proves it. I'd still like an explanation. ThuranX 03:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 33 Political divisions of China 22 provinces, and some others. Instantnood wants their to be three (Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau).

This conversation is so old and stale it is ridiculous - and the perpetuation of this and INSTANTNOODS perpetual edit war over it is what got him banned. He returns with a sockpuppet every few weeks to carry this argument, just long enough for any CU data to expire. But check the RFCU archives to see that I can spot an Instantnood sock a mile away. I'm not waiting for weeks of some process to AGAIN remove the same revert warring abuse that went on for two years. SchmuckyTheCat

[4], [5], [6]. I'm not sitting still while the latest incarnation of sockpuppet edits a few hundred articles that will need fixing later. I've had this exact conversation several times. SchmuckyTheCat

It's your duty to file a RFCU, or to report him here or at AIV. It's NOT your duty to make massive, disruptive reverts of every edit this guy makes, without so much as the slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet. It's even worse to do that in the midst of a massively POV category depopulation. Weren't you involved in an arbitration about all of this relatively recently as well? I've warned you once already on your talk page, and once here. If you continue to revert him, I'm blocking you for wikistalking and disruption. You should know better. The proper move here is to file an AN/I or AIV or RFCU report. Not to massively remove every edit this guy has ever done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightest proof that he's a sockpuppet?

1. [7] Look at that article history, it's all Instantnood socks.
2. [8] Oh, another one.
3. [9] Oh, Kowlooner makes the same exact edit as Qaka? Who is Qaka, well, User:Qaka says it's an Instantnood sock.
4. [10] How about this one?
5. [11] BTW, who's wikistalking?

Should I go on? SchmuckyTheCat

And, I'm not removing every edit. I'm looking at every single one. I don't care about the majority of them, actually. Instantnood has always had useful edits. But the insistence of edit warring about the political structure of China and various spelling issues is defining. He has an amazing ability to make these changes to hundreds of articles in a short amount of time, and THAT is incredibly disruptive. Waiting a few weeks to "settle the issue" every time he pops up leaves hundreds of articles in a bad state - particularly when he is editing stub templates which, in turn, affect hundreds of other articles. SchmuckyTheCat

Re ThuranX: The PRC has 23 provinces, five autonomous regions and four cities directly under the central government. One of the 23 provinces lies wholly within the ROC, which the PRC claims but have never ruled. Three other provinces claim territories in the ROC. In addition to the provinces, autonomous regions and direct cities, the PRC has two special administrative regions, namely Hong Kong and Macau. The 22 provinces, five autonomous regions and four direct cities are collectively called Mainland China. They constitute what PRC was before Hong Kong and Macau became part of the PRC. Kowlooner 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he'll talk your head off about this. SchmuckyTheCat

OK, so Mainland China WAS the PRC, until the PRC gained Hong Kong and Macau. So ... Mainland's now an outdated term, and the PRC represents the current state of China's geography? So why is it bad that he's depop'ing Mainland to move them to PRC? ThuranX 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because he's a political crank and that's what he edit wars about. SchmuckyTheCat

Nice Personal Attacks and trolling. Remember, just because you 'got him', doesn't give you free license to break policy too. ThuranX 05:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The PRC is the 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 direct cities, and (after 1997 and 1999) 2 special administrative regions. Mainland China is 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 direct cities. Since the special administrative regions are different from the rest of the PRC Mainland China is used to denote the rest from the special administrative regions. 203.218.133.216 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go with SchmuckyTheCat here and I've blocked Kowlooner indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Should a checkuser prove otherwise, he can be unblocked. I saw one of his earliest edits as changing the use of any PRC templates to Hong Kong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The diagnostic evidence shows the same. SchmuckyTheCat is unblocked, Kowlooner and the IP are both blocked as sockpuppets of a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So SchmuckyTheCat got blocked for helping Wikipedia and reverting the bad faith edits of a sockpuppet? No wonder so many solid editors leave Wikipedia. Poor kitty. You deserve a saucer of milk for your troubles. Jeffpw 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: the checkuser came back inconclusive. The only thing we have to go on here is the quack test, which is inherently inaccurate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I said CU would be inconclusive, because IP log data is only kept a few weeks. But second, what CU report came back inconclusive? Not the current one, which hasn't been acted on. SchmuckyTheCat

Ryulong and I contacted Dmcdevit on IRC. The conclusion was that the IP data was indefinitive, but it was his opinion that based on editing patterns it could be the same person ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

fwiw, I've never been incorrect when anyone else who knows Instantnood's pattern has been asked to take a look. I've been right close to a dozen times. I've never cried wolf and said a user was Instantnood just to see some smackdown action on some newbie I disagreed with. It is more disruptive to let a banned user - who by definition are disruptive - have their way with the wiki than it is to have a recognized user block their actions. Banned users are banned for a reason. When they pop up as a sock they should be acted on. Even if it was not Instantnood, if the edits were so similar to be unrecognizable, then the edits were just as disruptive as if it was. I'm all about not biting newbies, but a new account whose first edit goes straight to POV pushing stub tags is not a new user and knows exactly what they are doing and fully intend that disruption. You said I should wait until an admin justifies the actions. That's bogus. Admins just have extra buttons and if I can clean up disruption from the project, I will. SchmuckyTheCat

Swat would do well to read that linked essay, particularly the part which says And it certainly does not give you any Sergeant-like authority. Several of his actions today have been autocratic, and his deletion of the ITMFA image seems spiteful, considering he has had cross interactions with two editors who had the image on their page, and deleted it immediately after reading a message from me critical of his actions. The image is at deletion review, where its copyright free status is being established. I would hope the image is restored soon. Jeffpw 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume a little good faith here and stop the snide remarks Jeffpw. They're far from helpful. I deleted the image after viewing it on your user page and being curious as to what it meant. I clicked on the source, and found it to not have a correct license. Calling that spiteful is pretty arrogant. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Swat, you may find my remarks to be unpleasant, but that does not make them snide. I stand by the above comments, and would ask you to assume good faith about me, as well. I would also suggest that the simple fact that your actions have put you on ANI at least twice in one morning might tell you you're editing when you probably better could take a break. I commented to that effect on your talk page, but you deleted it without replying. I repeat it here. Jeffpw 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with initial decision to empty category - "mainland China" is arguably POV, while "People's Republic of China" is not. "Mainland China" asserts that there is a "non-mainland China" and this gets way too close to a "two-China policy" which recognises Taiwan as equal to China. While my own personal political beliefs entertain this, Wikipedia is not the place to have this argument. Orderinchaos 11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What you believe is not entirely correct. Although the KMT on Taiwan no longer insists the ROC is the legitimate China, it still calls Beijing "mainland China". But the usage of "mainland China" here with the category got nothing to do with Taiwan, but Hong Kong and Macau. If you bother to look at any document issued by the Chinese government, it uses "mainland China" to call the rest of the country that is not part of Hong Kong or Macau - in other words the 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 direct cities combined. The Hong Kong and Macau governments use "mainland China" in the same manner too.

Believe it or not, Google for the evidence. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] 203.218.46.10 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Want a review of a block against User:Crofty 4000 who doesn't seem to be here for anything more than posting to his user page. Per Kate's tool, out of his 108 edits here, 93 have been to his user page, creating what I would call a fairuse nightmare. I first asked him to remove them, then removed them myself when I didn't get a response. He reverted, I warned again. He then reverted again and I blocked for only 24 hours. Does that seem too harsh and too bitey in anyone else's opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems on the lenient side if anything. Compare with this case I was involved with yesterday. The relative paucity of mainspace contributions means we do not need to extend any special tolerance in this case I would say. If they repeat this on their return I would indefinitely block them. Here's another example of a problematic user page I would be interested in having other eyes on. --John 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

76.18.212.187 (talk · contribs) began vandalizing Arlo Guthrie in June. At that time, he/she got three vandalism warnings. They haven't edited since then, but they came back today to start vandalizing the same article again. I reported them at WP:AIV, but my comments there were removed by User:JForget, who instead went back to a level one warning on their Talk page. Does the same user, using what appears to be a static IP address, get to keep repeating vandalisms over and over again because of an excess of assuming good faith? If the same IP address keeps vandalizing the same article, can't we assume it's the same person? If this were a logged in user, they wouldn't get a level one warning again just because they haven't vandalized in four months, why should an IP be any different? Corvus cornix 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I could have put a t-2 warning for him, although he made content removal and NPOV violation (accidentally? well we may never know officially). When there is a long period since a last warning, I usually lower back the vandalism level to 1 unless the act of vandalism is serious ... i.e personnal attacks, blatant vandalism, etc. no matter if it is registered or not, same person or not. Usually, the registered ones, are often vandal-only accounts which do a few edits over a few minutes which generally result in an immediate ban. Log-in accounts are supposed to be more serious editors so that's probably why it is different and that we are more stiffer when they are making foul contributions. Of course, it varies depending on the admin or other users. Some will probably continue to increase the level warning whatever. However, in this case, a block wasn't warranted since it was only one act in four months and no t-4 warnings were given (thus not sufficiently warrented as mentionned at WP:AIV.--JForget 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot. Perhaps as this subpage develops, any new sections can be noted here. (Just a New section created with title "TITLE" ~~~~). At time of archiving 102 kb long. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} (no changes, so can be archived) Fram 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User Jtrainor is refusing to participate in discussion. Pushing his POV to article, deleting sources provided before. [20] Necator 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll ask but why are you adding a source that says nothing like what you are using it for? The source[21] is about what you say the S-400 is capable of doing yet you wiped out the language that the Russian had claimed its capabilities (which is both what the other sources indicate and what consensus on the talk page indicates). Also, User:Duckhunter6424 and others seem to reverted you as well. In fact, it looks like the moment the protection was lifted, you had to put the exact wording that you've wanted the page since September. All in this, this whole thing is a content dispute, so it is best to go to dispute resolution. Of course, if you want to keep the discussion here, I am more interesting in your editing now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus have not been reached. When I found additional non russian sources about this thing capability against stealth, both this users did not answer me on a talk page. [22] And User:Duckhunter6424 is not reverting my changes anymore after that, but Jtrainor keep going silently. This dispute was about wording. And I am trying to say, that not only russian sources claimed this system capability. So wording like "Russian sources have claimed" should be removed. Necator 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate also, if you read whole this discussion here and here. If you have enough time for that. Because this discussion is going pretty strange. Every time I do provide sources for any my claims in discussion, but haven't seen even one from my opponents. They just changing the topic or avoiding to participate in discussion when getting to much sources against their POV. Thanks! Necator 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Necator, why don't you falsely report me about it some more? I'll be pleased to escalate this right to an RfC if you want, because you consistently violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with these little tiffs of yours. Here's a hint: Reverting you is not a violation of any policy. Are you going to do this every time someone reverts you on any article? Jtrainor 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about no original research and verifiability policy at wikiquiette [23] But you keep going. And, please, don't tell me about civility after what you have published on your page "Wikipedia is useless crap because anyone can write anything down." ... "Contentious issues are just clouded with polemics by assholes with an agenda to push." [24] And if you want to blame me for something, it would be nice to provide some references, which will prove, that your blames are not just empty words. Necator 08:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And again you violate WP:CIVIL. What's on my userpage is not germane to this discussion. And, as a matter of fact, I havn't been warned for jack squat-- whereas you have been warned for 3RR in the past and the article in question has been protected at least once. Really, please stop trying to smear me, you're only digging yourself in deeper. Jtrainor 11:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to have yelling match with you. Let administrator decide what to do with that. Necator 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor is correct. His userpage is not relevant; however, Necator since September, you've basically only been editing on a single article, insisting on putting in the exact same wording. Throwing in additional sources (especially when you are misquoting them) is not appropriate at all. Necator, if multiple people are against your edit, you are then working against consensus. Period. Don't complain that everyone is all friends with each other and thus you can do whatever you want. I'd suggest getting a third opinion. After that, if Necator still wants to edit war, I recommend a topic ban on Necator, simply because I think that would be better than a series of blocks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me, where did i misquote a source? For example, source that I've recently added says "Fourth generation surface-to-air missile system used S-300 9M96-series missiles, but all-new ground elements providing capabilities against low RCS stealth aircraft, small cruise missiles, and future low-RCS re-entry vehicles." And this source is not russian. So wording like "Russian sources have claimed" inappropriate. Am i wrong? Necator 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jtrainor claims are totally unsourced, as you can see from here and it doesn't hold him from making edits, and revert sourced parts of the article. Necator 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching my watchlist light up for the last little while, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly is going on here.

On the face of it, I see Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in some sort of edit war on Will Geer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over whether or not to include statements about the actor's sexual orientation. Calton keeps adding the information (including a reference to a printed source); TruthCrusader keeps removing the info (arguing that the sourcing is inadequate). I assume that they're both going to sit and sulk for a bit because they're getting close to a 3RR violation.

There are a couple of factors that seem to raise this beyond the usual BLP/content dispute. Looking at the history of Will Geer reveals a series of incivil edit summaries, particularly from Calton: "...hissy fit...lack of self control", "...Buckwheat", "...daft...". (Calton is fresh off a monthlong wikibreak that followed a 24-hour block for persistent incivility.) On TruthCrusader's part, I see the repeated removal of content that appears to be sourced, along with edit summaries that don't seem to accurately reflect that fact: "r/v. Not sourced, not verified...".

Adding fuel to the fire, Calton appears to be suggesting that TruthCrusader has been engaged in some sort of off-wiki harrassment of Calton. TruthCrusader made an edit to Talk:Will Geer here that links his username to a particular IP address; in this post to User talk:TruthCrusader, Calton insinuates that an individual using that IP address has made some sort of inflammatory blog posts. A further post from Calton repeats the statement, and adds that TruthCrusader has started to use proxies (and throws in a bit of abuse, as well).

I don't know what the history of TruthCrusader is, but it certainly appears that something funny is going on. I have asked Calton and TruthCrusader to explain themselves here, pronto. I have something of a history with Calton, so I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to take any administrative actions in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that it strikes me as weird to get so involved in something with which you have no involvement, what exactly do you want an admin to do and how is it your prerogative to demand that these editors explain themselves pronto here? Sorry, but that smacks of arrogance and busy-body meddling. Eusebeus 17:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(The unpolite answer) That's what sysops - new and old - do. They volunteer to look after the general well being of the encyclopedia by actin in an administrative function. Attempting to resolve editor conflicts is one of them, as is deflecting the slings and arrows of outrageous displays of being a dick. Further, a good admin likes to get the opinion of others before embarking upon an action where there might be consequences - therefore TenOfAllTrades is to be commended for both involving themselves in the matter and referring it to their colleagues. Is there any other matter that needs explaining to you? LessHeard vanU 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A spirited defense, certainly; but not very convincing. Sorry Less. Eusebeus 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I saw an edit war, serious user conduct issues, and the insinuation that one of our contributors was being harrassed off-wiki by another. The two editors don't seem capable of resolving the dispute on their own, and TruthCrusader has regularly sought admin intervention on his behalf. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; it doesn't work if the atmosphere is poisoned by the sort of bile that's spilling over from this dispute onto articles and other editors. Those strike me as issues worthy of this board's attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your comments and "busy-body meddling" -- a fairly accurate summary, I'd say -- might be appropriate if they were better informed. As far as the edit-warring -- and your rather juvenile summary thereof -- there's nothing to explain, or at least dispute: I added back -- properly sourced, neutrally worded, and footnoted, to boot -- relevant material about Will Geer. TruthCrusader is removing it for no discernible reason, other than, perhaps, an impulse-control problem and one of his quarterly attempts to get me banned, something he's been doing off and on over the last couple of years. The two sides are not even close to being equivalent, and the actual edit-warring is being done by one side only. The false equivalency is, at best, irritating, and worst actively insulting.

• As far as TruthCrusader's off-wiki harassment and his attempts to snow admins as part of his campaign, I've already privately e-mailed a more complete set of evidence to a few admins I trust (including one who's on ArbCom) documenting the off-wiki attacks and the clear evidence connecting TruthCrusader (blog software records IP addresses, and TruthCrusader was very helpful in connecting the dots). Bottom line: this is a horse you don't want to back. --Calton | Talk 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh,, and you've got your chronology backwards, though I don't suppose that's obvious: I discovered TruthCrusader's mucking about with Will Geer BECAUSE I was backtracking to figure out who left a message for me saying "fuck off you wikipedia nazi" -- and, as I said above, this edit lead me right there. And though I've really DO have better things to do -- like my job, which I'm behind on, and sleep, which is what I should be doing right now -- and therefore haven't been editing Wikipedia, I figured I ought to take the time to fix the mess that TruthCrusader left. And, as usual, I got drawn in trying to fix up messes where I saw them. But, if you think exacerbating messes, defending trolls, and encouraging harassment on- and off-Wiki is the way to build a better enecyclopedia, go for it, but don't expect a lot of support from a lot of people for that. --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This one's easy. The linkage between TruthCrusader and the obscene harassment Calton has received is clear; if I see one more report of it that even seems like TruthCrusader, I'll just block him myself and let the chips fall where they may. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay; I wasn't aware that this had been discussed elsewhere. If there's serious off-wiki harrassment going on, I don't think anyone would object to a flat ban immediately. It doesn't make sense to me that our optimal response would be 'wait and see if he does something else obnoxious' while he tries to drag admins into blocking Calton, while Calton keeps leaving bitter messages and insulting edit summaries without any other recourse...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ok, so we have a content dispute and behavioral issues. Looking at the Will Geer article and talk page histories it seems like there is a long running pattern of people adding claims that Geer was gay or bi-sexual without references and these being challenged and removed (by TruthCrusader amongst others). Now the information has apparently been re-added, sourced to claims made by Harry Hay. I have no idea whether Mr. Hay (who is apparently also dead) should be considered reliable on this issue, but that likely ought to be the focus of both user's efforts. Rather than reverting each other with claims of 'bad sources!' and 'no, good sources!' they ought to be discussing the merits of the source. BTW, edit warring over content is edit warring... regardless of who turns out to be 'right'. To claim that 'only the other guy is really edit warring' is simply false.

As to the behavioral issues. Calton claims that TruthCrusader has engaged in egregious harassment and attacks off-wiki. Unfortunately, it is inherently difficult to prove such. Logs and mails can be alterred, open IPs can be accessed by other people, et cetera. However, in one sense it doesn't matter... because that would not be an excuse for the on-wiki attacks which Calton has engaged in. Even if Calton is absolutely right and truthful about what has gone on off-wiki. Even if it had all taken place ON wiki openly under TruthCrusader's account. Responding in kind, though not quite as viciously as the described off-wiki conduct, is still harmful and disruptive.

Evidence of the off-wiki harassment should be looked at to see if it can actually be proven (in which case an indef block would be very much in order), but regardless of that, both users need to stop edit warring and Calton needs to stop attacking and insulting. --CBD 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To Jpgordon: If the evidence is clear, why wait until you see another report of it? I suppose you are the among the people privy to Calton's evidence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that's how I work. Others might work in other ways. (And I try not to block people before I've had breakfast. Need nutrients in brain to make rational decision.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson comes up with his usual long and convoluted rationale excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls, with a side order of passive-aggression, a heaping helping of false equivalency (why yes, the things I've said about TruthCrusader are SO similiar to him accusing me of being a pedophile and saying that my father raped my mother -- and by the way, I redacted some equally awful crap from what I posted), and some actual falsehoods about the article that has wound up at the center of thngs, to boot (hint 1: "Harry Hay" is NOT the source of the claims).

Personally, I can't imagine why CBD thinks carrying water for trolls in any way aids the building of an encyclopedia, and yet he continues to do so. Is there something to this "Trolls are people too! Fight the power" schtick that I'm missing? --Calton | Talk 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See, that's precisely the kind of behavior I was saying you shouldn't be engaging in. Which seemed self-evident so... you are doing what, exactly, here? Trying to insult and provoke me? You need to calm down and stop attacking anyone and everyone who asks you to be remotely civil. --CBD 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never had any reason to doubt Calton's honesty. His civility needs work, but his integrity is above reproach. I would also trust Jpgordon's assessment of any privately-held evidence. Is there any conceivable reason not to drop the banhammer on TruthCrusader here?

As to the second (relatively minor) issue here, I hope that any (remaining) involved parties can have a good-faith discussion about type and quality of sourcing on Talk:Will Geer. If TruthCrusader is removed from the equation, there should be nothing that prevents a civil, rational talk page discussion about any remaining editorial concerns, right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He is arguing that you are making false equivalences, CBD. You seem to be avoiding responding directly to this charge. El_C 19:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding? No... I simply assumed that since proof Calton's 'charges' were false is plainly visible on this very page there was no need to respond to them at all. If you think otherwise, let's look at these 'charges';

1. CBDunkerson is "excusing bad behavior by obvious trolls" - See my first post above (my only previous comment on this matter). See me saying that TruthCrusader, the presumable target of Calton's personal attack, had edit warred and that if the accusations of off-wiki harassment could be proven he should be indef blocked. In what way does this 'excuse bad behavior'?
2. "false equivalency" - I said that Calton engaged in edit warring too... he has. I said that Calton has engaged in incivility and personal attacks too... he has (and not just towards TruthCrusader). I said that these were less severe than the vicious comments attributed to TruthCrusader off-wiki... they were. So, where did I say anything 'false' or that they were 'equivalent' except in ways that... they were?
3. CBDunkerson has stated "actual falsehoods about the article ... 'Harry Hay' is NOT the source of the claims" - I can't claim to have studied the matter in extensive detail so perhaps I am somehow mistaken... but I truly have no idea how the quotation of Harry Hay saying, "Much of America wasn't ready to hear that Grandpa on The Waltons was bisexual" in this edit by Calton means that "Harry Hay is NOT the source of the claims". Harry Hay said it... but he is not the source? What person then, other than Harry Hay, IS the source of this claim?

Bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another. Claiming that saying both users need to follow the standards is "excusing bad behavior" is an obvious falsity. The truth is that I did not excuse Calton's bad behavior. Which I will no doubt be thanked for... given the vehemence of insistence that bad behavior should NOT be excused. :] --CBD 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's enough strawmen to populate an Iowa county full of cornfields. That last paragraph, where you link together separate quotes to give the appearance my claiming something I didn't is a classic. But let's go through them.

• Point 1: let's start with your denigrating rhetoric, starting with "Calton claims", piled on with other, similar qualifiers ("difficult to prove", etc.), all with the rhetorical result -- intentional, I'm sure -- of casting doubting on what I say.
• Point 2: All those "facts"? Literally true, qualitatively false. Again, another attempt to rhetorically place my comments on par with the grotesque outbursts of TruthCrusader ("Granted, your organization is not as bad as NAMBLA..." "Yes, as President, he would be not as bad as Pol Pot...").
• Point 3: I included THREE references, not just one you quoted as if it were the only one. So I'd say yah, you didn't study the matter in much detail -- all three or four sentences worth -- to overlook the two other references. Again, literally true regarding your characterization of one of the references, qualitatively false to not mention the other two.

Ultimately, yeah, it's a question of your playing rhetorical games to minimize egregious conduct and make false equivalences. Personally, I'm thinking that all this contrarian behavior on your part is just a game for you, a chance to play a junior-league defense attorney on the internets. It certainly seems that your standards as to what is defensible directly correlates to the likelihood of the "defendant" being blocked or banned: your essentially unilateral defense of User:Pigsonthewing in his two ArbCom cases -- User:Pigsonthewing hisownself couldn't be bothered to respond -- is an obvious showcase, and funny how his incivility deserved a pass, hmm?

And just a thought: regular readers on this noticeboard should think back on CBDunkerson's various contributions to it. It might be worth considering how frequently he jumps to the defense of the badly behaved with his "Fight the power! Admins can't be trusted!" rhetoric. How seriously should he be taken? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As responding to the claims you are making just brings additional accusations I see no point in continuing. I will simply say again; you are not allowed to be incivil to other users. Not to users who have been incivil to you and certainly not to those whom have simply disagreed with you. If you do not stop I believe you are working your way towards an indefinite ban. Since you have responded to my block of you with all manner of accusations I will not be doing so again, but the fact that you have repeatedly harassed good editors who have done nothing wrong tells me it is coming. There is a reason your unblock requests were denied. You can't abuse people the way you do and remain a Wikipedia user. You need to stop. --CBD 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Harassed good editors who have done nothing wrong" refers to yourself, right? ;) Sorry, couldn't resist! El_C 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to his nastiness towards users like Just James, RedSpruce, JackOfOz, and so forth. Longstanding positive contributors whom Calton has belittled and harassed over minor issues. Yes, he is also incivil to those who dare ask him to stop being abusive, but if the first problem were resolved the second would not exist. Finally, yes, he is also insulting to newbies who make mistakes and actual 'vandals' and 'trolls', but those are hardly positive traits either. Remember, it is very important that we not be "excusing bad behavior". Right? --CBD 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you don't have a single shred of moral authority. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. A truckload of hypocrisy, a long history of troll-enabling, petty behavior, shifting standards, and -- here, especially -- dodging responsibility for your actions. I listen to people I respect: that group does not and has never included you.

Remember, it is very important that we not be "excusing bad behavior". Right? Right. When did you plan on starting? --Calton | Talk 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have NO idea what is going on or how this has suddenly exploded. For the Will Geer article, I did not feel the information claiming his sexuality was verifiable enough to warrent such an inclusion in the article. Apparently I wasn't the only one who felt this way. I cant see how it could be called an edit war, as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me, rather than caring about the article, which is why I was trying to prevent what I felt was not notable sources removed from the article. In the interests of fairness however, I will cease to work on the article as apparently Calton will not give me any peace over it. I still maintain the sources being given are not notable enough, but I will allow others to make that call now.

As for this so called Wiki-stalking. I admit my past on Wiki hasn't been stellar, as evident by my block logs. However, I have NO idea what Calton is on about. He hasn't shown me or anyone outside his circle of 'friends' any evidence at all and I honestly have NO idea who he has decided to throw this at me, of all people. I have remained civil in this matter, despite my temptation to unload on him, which is something I wish to point out he has not. I can't even think WHY he would think I would WANT to harass him, I had forgotten he had even existed until I logged in one day to find a rather nasty message on my talk page. There DOES seem to be something fishy going on, and I wish to point out that part of my problems in the past were caused by a multiple banned user named Chad Bryant, who would do what he could to get me banned or in trouble. He HAS impersonated me on the Internet many many times, and I am starting to wonder if this may be the case now. Just look at my past talk pages/incidents/block logs of myself and Chad Bryant to see. That MAY be what is happening here because I damn well know I would not waste my time with anything to do with Calton. TruthCrusader 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this investigation however, as I do not like lies and slanderous remarks being made about myself, even on Wiki which, by the way, I don't even visit much anymore due to real life.

as Calton, IMHO, is merely reverting for the sake of trying to get to me - Mr Kettle? Mr Pot on line 2...: I provided THREE reliable sources -- two from books, even -- and yet you reverted with the edit summary "...Not sourced, not verified...". So, who, exactly, seems to be reverting for its own sake? --Calton | Talk 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted on Talk:Will Geer the results of a brief search for references regarding the alleged bisexuality of Geer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "off-wiki" behavior should be considered. How can Wikipedia's rules have any bearing or weight over real life actions? As I read this, Calton seems very insistent that TruthCrusader is harrassing him off-wiki and that this should factor into a banning decision. In the interest of balance and fairness, I'd like to bring the following website to the community's attention : http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Berkeley_Wikipedia_cyberstalking.php The host of this site is apparently a US government expert on Cyber stalking and Internet harrassment. A google search of Calton's name brings up quite a few sites on which people seem to be accusing Calton of online harrassment. Amazon's website seems to have had two major incidents regardng Calton harrassing famous authors. Take it for what it's worth, but I'd be inclined to question Calton's credibility. The majority of his editorial contributions seem designed to provoke confrontations with others, particularly new users. MegaMom 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above information is certainly new to me. Since this is apprently the case, unless of course Amazon is 'lying' I respectfully request this matter is dropped as Calton it seems has a massive credibility problem now and any information or "evidence" he claims to have MUST now be considered highly suspect. I have already agreed to leave the Geer article alone, despite my objections to it, and hope this matter now goes away. TruthCrusader 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience of Calton - and I should note here that I *often* disagree with his tagging for deletion of images and I would agree his civility at times needs work - I have never seen any reason to question his integrity or credibility, or his commitment to the project. I'm also surprised that an editor who has never interacted with him, so far as I can see, and has not quite 350 edits is willing to make such bizarre allegations against a long term contributor on a forum such as this. The "US Government" trick is the oldest in the book - the site linked to is nothing but a long first-person rant by some individual in defence of an author, with extremely tenuous links being drawn. I tend to agree with WP:V that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that simply hasn't been provided here. Orderinchaos 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is any of this being discussed here, and not on the article's Talk page, the WP:AN3 page, or in an RfC? Corvus cornix 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, I have made no "bizarre allegations" I have provided a link to information and asked others to look into the matter and make their own determinations. I suggest that you take the time to review the site I provided a link to more carefully, as the author's credentials and employment status with the government are mentioned therein. No one is trying to play any kind of "trick" here, as you allege. The "evidence" was strong enough for Amazon.com to take action against Calton. Not to mention the fact that there are people all over the Internet complaining about Calton's behavior on Wikipedia and other sites.

You are correct in stating that I have had no previous interaction with Calton, although I have been keeping tabs on his conduct for some time now. My 13 year old son is one of the many people, the FAR from civil, Calton has unnecessarily harrassed on this site. Information contained on my son's user page would lead any THINKING adult to realize that they were dealing with a minor. From his very first message to my son, Calton was apparently hostile, rude and threatening. He apparently referred to my son as a "nit-wit" who had "confused Wikipedia with my space". When my son tried to explain to Calton that he was new to Wikipedia, his requests for guidance were met with hostility and taunting, abusive remarks. Calton apparently took great delight in having my son's user page deleted from this site. My son was really heartbroken and upset over the situation for quite some time. No adult that I know would treat a child in the hateful manner in which Calton apparently treated my son. I've told my boy that Wikipedia is "too rough" a site for him and he is no longer allowed to visit it. Sounds crazy when one considers the fact that it is an encyclopedia, which could or should be a good learning tool for a child. The only lesson my son learned from Wikipedia was one of online harrassment and intimidation.

It seems that Wikipedia may have turned a blind eye to its own rules where Calton is concerned. Any objective outsider can see by reviewing this man's edit history, that he is not a "valuable" contributor. He seldom contributes to articles, other than to provoke arguments and confrontations with other users. He can clearly be seen stalking editors from article to article. He seems to spend the majority of his time targeting and attacking new users, especially children. If he is not an administrator, as his pages state, he should not be behaving as if he were some sort of cyber cop for Wikipedia. According to Calton, himself, allegations of pedophilia have apparently been made against him elsewhere on the Internet. As a parent it causes me great concern, when I see this overtly hostile, abusive editor engaging in a pattern of initiating unwelcome contact with minors on this site. I think Wikipedia would be wise to consider banning Calton, as the harm and bad feelings he generates these days must far outweigh any good he may have done in the past. MegaMom 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a good look through the cyberstalking portion of that site (which, I'd note, has no actual entry page and doesn't appear to be linked from the entry page of the site, which appears to be an Objectivist information source of some sort) would indicate that the specific case situations I could find are targeted at people who were issuing negative reviews to this fellow's book. The lengthy screed about Calton provides little in the way of proof that it's one person involved in all of this, and if you manage to get towards the bottom of the page, find that the creator was, in fact, been in a battle with Calton here over apparent self-promotional issues. Thus, his analysis could be considered questionable, especially considering other commentaries like this page, which would seem to suggest that a crowd of admins were cyberstalking him as a group effort.

As for your son's issues with Calton, some diffs showing his harassment would better enlighten readers as to the particular actions you disliked. Can you point towards the specific incidents involved? I'd be interested to see specific diffs for your claims that he targets children specifically, personally. My (non-admin) view is that yes, Calton can be abrasive in his comments and could do with toning it down some, but busting spammers and other troublemakers is all good work that needs to be done. So, if you could provide some specific diffs for the issues you mention, that would be great. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, your posting only provides more credibility to the site I referenced. In the first place there appears to be only be ONE bad review the site operator has objected to - from Calton. Moreover, it appears that Calton stalked the author from Wikipedia into the real world and attempted to damage his professional reputation. I have now found what appear to be THREE authors on Amazon who've had "issues" with Calton. Amazon clearly has his IP address and has apparently taken action against him. I'm inclined to trust their assessment. I don't profess to know all the facts here. This is one of several sites I came across when researching my son's online attacker. Frankly, I believe your "evidence" only proves my point. The link you've provided is an excellent example of defamation of character (as Wikipedia's defines that term) in flagrant violation of Wikipedia's own policies. On the Administrators' Noticeboard Calton clearly attempts to defame that author's character on several fronts. The most clear cut example is when he states that the author's book was published by a vanity press. Well, as an uninvolved bystander - it took me all of about two minutes to conduct a google search and find that Calton's statement is false and therefore, libellous. The book in question was published by Bedside Books, a subsidiary of American books. Although they may be a small publishing house, it is clear from their website that this is NOT a vanity press and the book is not self published. http://www.american-book.com/ Now, if I can find that out in a couple of minutes - why haven't Wikipedia's administrators bothered to investigate the matter? Your link provides clear cut evidence that Calton has maliciously posted a libellous statement about a living person seemingly designed to defame that individual's character and harm their professional reputation. Why? I want to know why blatent clear cut libel has not been deleted from the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is apparently turning up on google searches of this authors name? (I can't really blame him for featuring Calton on his site.) Can an administrator please explain that "oversight" to me?

As for my son, he made the classic, naive mistake of using his real name on this forum. I really do not want his name to have any more "appearances" on google as a result of these discussions. He's barely a teenager and he's already had his good name sullied all over the Internet, thanks to the malicious, irresponsible actions of Calton. I will discuss this matter with my husband tomorrow and see what he thinks about providing more information. Calton should be banned. MegaMom 06:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt, we've been through this before: your book was published through a vanity press, which "Bedside Books" as a division of American Book Publishing Group is:

• American Book Publishing Group (formerly Forbes Publishing) aka American-Book.com aka ABPG: Charges fee. This company has plagiarized authors in the past and abused trademarks, notably that of the real Forbes Publishing. Strongly not recommended. A book publisher featuring the following imprints: American Book Publishing*, American Book Classics*, American University Publishing*, Bedside Books*, and Millennial Mind Publishing*. (*Trademarks of American Book Publishing Group). (From Preditors and Editors Guide to Publishers
• Writer Beware has received, and continues to receive, numerous complaints about American Book Publishing (C. Lee Nunn, owner). ABP, which presents itself as a "traditional" publisher, requires its authors to pay a sizable "setup" fee. [emphasis mine] Complaints include non-standard contract terms, non-production of promised e-book editions, non-fulfillment of marketing and publicity promises, repeatedly delayed publication schedules, finished books full of errors, non-payment of royalties, heavy pressure on authors to purchase bulk numbers of their own books, and harassment of those who question or complain. American Book Publishing has been the focus of a police investigation.[emphasis mine] Authors with complaints about American Book Publishing are urged to contact Writer Beware: beware@sfwa.org. from The Science Fiction Writers of America "ALERTS FOR WRITERS" page.

It's not only a vanity press, it's a vanity press with a bad reputation even among other vanity presses. And the less said about the Amazon idiocy (short answer: not me. Longer answer: an example of the claimant's thought processes in identifying people can be found here.--Calton | Talk 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• What we have here is a lot of vague, unsubstantiated assertions about someone who has been here a long time. The case you raise above is a perfectly routine case of vanity spamming. If you want the debate archive blanked to save his blushes, you have only to ask nicely and it will be done, but shameless self-promotion would appear to describe it just nicely. Sure, people get carried away, happens all the time, but that doesn't mean we're obliged to be superhuman about it. People who spend ages pushing themselves or their ideas are a recurring problem. You want that archive blanked? Guy (Help!) 10:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add my request to see this so called "evidence" that Calton passed to 'people he trusts' has so far been answered with silence. I feel, as someone falsely accused of something, it is my right (not to mention common courtesy) to see what these claims are based on. Should my requests go unanswered much longer I will take them to a higher level in the Wiki hiearchy. I am honestly sorry this matter has exploded so much and taken up so many people's time, which could be used to better the encyclopedia.TruthCrusader 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The "higher level" has already been notified -- three different admins who know my identity (including one who happens to be on ArbCom) -- and presented with the evidence, and Mike Godwin (Wikipedia counsel) has been notified as a courtesy, to boot. Perhaps you could send an e-mail directly to them. Be sure to use your real e-mail address so that IP addresses can be compared -- and I already know what message I'll want to have them compare it to.

Give it up, buckie, you've been rumbled. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:172.209.25.107. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not without proper warnings being left first. I've laid the first one down. Tabercil 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Proper warnings? Did you look at the contribs? A vandalism-only IP who behaves like this doesn't require any warnings. I would certainly block, except I see TerriersFan already did. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Should User:Ahaupt@gmail.com be blocked? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 06:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why not? :O — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In case anyone is inclined to interpret that literally, what I really mean is, why? — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Because his username contains an email address. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't email addresses not allowed to be in usernames? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the email address policy came in at about September 2006 and his account was created before this (in August[25]), my immediate answer is "no" - Alison ^❤ 08:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. =( — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user created an account and has been editing since before the no emails policy was in place. It was agreed (only by a handful of editors, but I don't think it's anything controversial) that the policy shouldn't be applied post de facto. So I think this one is okay. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. :) --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In the best Colbert tradition, the new user Bibliophilus (talk · contribs · block log) has been editing the article on the Albanian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to triple the number of speakers (from the ca. 6 million mentioned by Ethnologue, to his "nearly 17,5 million people" original research), while simultaneoulsy altering "some scholars believe that Albanian derives from the Illyrian language" to say "[it] has been proven that...", replacing the English name "Kosovo" by the Albanian ones Kosova & Kosovë, etc... you get the picture.

Among his additions to the article: But Albanian is notabily higher developed and more noble than any slavic language, especially than the serbian one which has been created during the 1900-s. (diff.)

For consistency, he also tripled the numbers in the article on Albanians (diff.), using the opportunity to add: Also it is widely believed that most of the so called "serbs" of the ethnic Albanian region of Kosova, are just albanians culturally assimilated by the influence of the byzantine orthodox church of the region which for some periods was under the rule of serbian kings.

Although my favourite one is this edit to the article on Albania :-)

His edits to the article on the Albanian language:

• 14:43, 25 October 2007
• 19:28, 25 October 2007
• 21:47, 28 October 2007
• 08:55, 29 October 2007 (blindly reverting to his preferred version, removing Flibjib8's edits in the process).

I had left a note at his talk page, a fruitless one as his last edit shows. Help from a third party would be most appreciated. - Best regards, Ev 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User has just come back of a 48 hour block from Durova for soapboxing, contentious editing, violating NPOV, and posting of frivolous complaints at the COI noticeboard. The block has clearly had no effect, and I am minded to just block him entirely. Thoughts? Neil ☎ 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that I'd edit-conflicted with you, but I was going to share the same sentiments. I assume that the 25 October and previous material was dealt with in Durova's 48-hour block, but the new edits show no sign of changing the disruptive behaviour. Whether a longer block or some other sanctions are in order I do not know, but some action should be taken. Tewfik^Talk 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Repeating his previous behaviour directly off the block is bad, changing the numbers in a reference to fit his POV is worse. Defending your POV is understandable, even if it can lead to behaviour which is not fit for Wikipedia. Changing the data in a reference, something which should be independent and reliable, to fit your POV, is unforgiveable. I have indicated on the user talk page that the continuation of this kind of edits after the block has expired may well lead to an indefinite block. Fram 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporting a potentially controversial action here for review and, if necessary, undoing. Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a party to the Sadi Carnot case above, has been modifying WP:BAN, a policy which will doubtless be cited in the ArbCom case should it be accepted. He cites for consensus an RFC which he opened at WT:BAN last Thursday. I do not agree that there is consensus after only four days discussion, nor do I feel that it should be Jehochman who makes any changes that might be agreed in the future, at least while he is the subject of an RfAr relating to this policy. As such, I have reverted his changes here. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to take this to WP:AN i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. It is now here. Physchim62 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fram 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the edits of 203.221.238.209 (talk · contribs), who left me a one month block notice on my talk page, I found that 203.220.106.25 (talk · contribs) (likely the same person) had closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AeroFox (2nd nomination) as "keep" and signed it as Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs). [26] Obviously an impostor, and the comment was signed January '07. AfD is not an area in which I participate, so is there anything else that needs to be done? Extend closing, relist, etc? Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats very strange, and clearly done on purpose to try and trick the system, since two very similar IPs !voted keep on the afd. The AFD should either be re-opened, or even just speedy the article since it looks pretty spammy to me. And the Ip should be blocked, is there a specific policy for impersonating another editor--Jac16888 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked (one and two minutes before the first report here, no less :-) ) Fram 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Any rogue admins want to WP:SNOW close this AFD so we can put the article on DYK in the next few hours? Despite being the "ultimate guy to say or judge", I'm not enthused about closing a discussion I've participated in.--chaser - t 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[27] What does everyone think of this? ₪PhatBob₢ 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone trolling. Edits should be deleted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a short block on the IP, per the last time we did this sort of thing (ie, suicide threats. Granted, it may be trolling, but I don't see the harm in following WP:SUICIDE). (Or is it less likely to be helpful give that IPs can shift?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and make a report to the local police to be on the safe side. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to talk to him. -Goodshoped 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported to Reston, VA police office (based on a WHOIS), although they said that since they couldn't determine a location, there wasn't anything they could do. (They suggested contacting my local police, which seems odd). --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I'm about to loose 'net access for a bit, so I'll hope it's a hoax, and count this as a good deed for the day. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Reston is only the location of the Verizon Internet headquarters, their access is US-wide. Corvus cornix 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more we can do then. Suggest archiving this thread per don't feed the trolls. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again? JuJube 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, notify the WikiMedia Office, per WP:SUICIDE, then I suggest archiving this thread to avoid encouraging people to create hoaxes. Once the problem is dealt with, put the thread away. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found the location of the person, Verizon is simply the provider. It is located in Newton, Mass. Should I call their police? Neranei (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, call local police. Notify WMF foundation here: foundation:Contact us. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've called (I'm a minor, so this could turn out badly), and am currently on the phone. I will contact the Foundation asap. Neranei (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just gotten off the phone, they have all the information and said that they'll take suicide threats seriously etc. I hope this is all sorted. Regards, Neranei (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I called Verizon's abuse hotline and they finally directed me to the email address from the Whois info. I sent them an email, but all I've gotten back was a form response.--chaser - t 23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC

Again, this might not be the right forum, but here goes. I created the secttion above titled "Weird", but I forgot to sign it. The new weird thing is that somebody else's signature got attached to it. I'm not User:Jéské Couriano and the diffs show that I made the edit. Any idea why this happened? --Steven J. Anderson 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, looks like you forgot to sign and sinebot got confused (I didn't go through the history). Not surprising that sinebot would get confused -- this has to be one of the most active discussion pages on WP. You can always fix it. Into The Fray ^T/C 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I used {{unsigned}} to give attribution to the post I was answering, but I must have copied the wrong name out of the page history after looking for the diff in which your message appeared. Mea culpa. --Dynaflow babble 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess I should avoid using "Weird" as a header title... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The report was accidently removed by a bot, so I post it here again. I file a report regarding Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors. He was once reported here due to his intentional slanders against User:Smoove K, the owner of Heart Corporation in order to avenge his friends on User:Smoove K. [28], [29], [30],[31] Wiki is clearly not a place for him to work off his grudges, but he repeatedly does that when he conflicts with other parties. I want to report his disruptive behaviors on 3 matters.

• 1st : Reverting my talk page to mock of me. I assume his repeated scorns to be regarded vandalism. [32] [33][34][35]
• 2nd: His disruptive behaviors on Korean related articles
• 3rd: His personal and racial slurs. --Appletrees 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Time	Examples (to Appletrees)	Place
14:55, 29 September 2007	"cute puppies", made a small joke in my edit summary. big deal. My edit was pure fact	User talk:Appletrees
15:23, 29 September 2007	when you eat meat, you eat the flesh. therefore cute puppy flesh is 100% accurate. I don't care if some Korean was revered by Koreans, Adolf Hitler was revered by the German people, and was awarded Time Magazine Man of the Year. Big Deal, he was still a murdering racist. (mocking Korean eating dog meats, comparing Korean independent activist with Hitler and POV issue)	User talk:Appletrees
17:41, 29 September 2007	it is very nice of you to struggle and try so hard with your English, so that you can get your point across. Regarding Hitler, I said WAS (past tense) in response to your claims that some unimportant Korean WAS(past tense) revered. like for like. A direct comparison, if you are having trouble understanding the difference between past and present tense	User talk:Appletrees
02:53, 2 October 2007	lack of education, stupid, very fucking funny (mocking my English)	User talk:Appletrees
06:46, 30 September 2007	I have at no time insulted Korea (my response is to his prior neighboring countries envy Japan. he's lying again) until you at least have the ability to converse, without making the readers head explode. You are unable to write a single sentence without numerous glaring errors.	User talk:Appletrees
14:21, 2 October 2007	BTW 2+2=6324863243246129849rapist4432423 in the minds of some, how people with limited skills manage to perform simple tasks such as remembering not to stop breathing (mocking my English and death curse)	User talk:Ledtim
14:41, 2 October 2007	I will have to learn Pidgin English in order to communicate with some users	User talk:Ledtim
17:27, 3 October 2007	you might want to ask appletrees not to comment on the 3RR ruling, I think the whole communicating with adults scenario is a little beyond him.	User talk:Melonbarmonster

Time	Examples (to Ledtim)	Place
15:18, 30 September 2007	You complained about the use of the word chon? Stop whining (lying, mocking, racial slur)	User talk:Ledtim
15:24, 30 September 2007	weird...if people take such offence to the word Chon - then this restaurant is damn offensive, "a pan fried dish" ? damn...i should be banned from editing wikipedia for life, for that evil slur.	User talk:Ledtim
15:28, 30 September 2007	please don't use offensive words such as gaijin. (Chon prostitutes are acceptable, but gaijin is not okay? irony)	User talk:Ledtim
15:58, 30 September 2007	I've never heard the word 'chon' being used in anything other than a complimentary manner, don't blame me if people take offence - maybe they just have a chip on their shoulder or something.	User talk:Ledtim
16:01, 30 September 2007	try to work out how much I care about you disliking the words that I use. , whining and crying like a little girl.	User talk:Ledtim
16:11, 30 September 2007	I think it is more than acceptable to use the word 'chon' there are so many ways to use it, and I use it only in the nice way. In the caring and loving way. So bye bye, go stalk someone else	User talk:Ledtim
15:43, 1 October 2007	it's like raping someone, the rapist might be having a great time, but the rape victim, normally feels slightly less appreciative of the sexual encounter. note - my comments are based on the assumption that you actually have friends and a social life in the real world. have fun	User talk:Ledtim
19:18, 30 September 2007	I think the term rape is a little too negative and POV, and would like to change this article's title to "suprise sex" (his dubious POV theory, insulting)	Talk:Rape

Background

About a month ago, Sennen goroshi and I had a series of disputes and I had to put up with and saw so many insults and slurs from him (see the tables below) In the process, he was reported by Melonbarmonster for his 3RR violation and disruptive behaviors on Korean cuisine ariticle. [36] I backed up Melonbarmonster because aside from disputes with me, Sennen goroshi's made many people upset with his disruptive behaviors on Korean-related articles, such as Korean cuisine especially eating dog meat, An Jung-geun, Dokdo, Empress Myeongseong. [37] [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43][44], [45],[46],[47] After he got banned for 48 hours as the consequence of his behaviors. [48] But far from reflecting his own faults, he blamed me for the result and made a mock of me again and have grudges against me. [49]. Recently, I had a discord with somebody on Dano (Korean festival), and both accidentally violated 3RR. And then Sennen goroshi reported only me for his revenge regardless of the fact that the matter was already meditated and he was not involved in the article at all. He was disappointed by the report being useless, so he chased me again. As the result, I was reported again by him even though I didn't violate 3RR, but due to the very prior report, I was blocked. But he was not satisfied with the result yet. [50], [51], [52] He still keeps provoking me on other articles but I could almost manage myself until seeing his vandalism on my talk page. This behavior is just another attempt to make me angry and is obviously from his malicious intent. I think he just enjoy making a noise on controversial articles and pushing his own rule to others but that is even not consistent. I admit that this report is way too long but there are much more examples. I hope nobody gets offended by Sennen goroshi's disruptive behaviors anymore. Thanks.

Discussion before posting again

Indeed this is too long, and I doubt anyone will go through the trouble of sifting through the diffs, especially of stale 3RR reports which don't belong here. That said, some of the comments are clear violations of Wikipedia's policies on civility, such as those mocking Appletrees' English and intellect, or the pair of rape comments. Perhaps a harshly worded comment or even a short block would help Sennen goroshi understand the principle of "comment on content, not contributors", though I'm not convinced that Appletees has the best understanding either. Regardless of what happens, I suggest that you (Appletree) just don't allow yourself to take part in such unconstructive communication in the future so as to avoid the problems. TewfikTalk 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC) So basically I'm guilty of putting comments on the Heart article, within my first week or 2 of editing wikipedia, making a few comments regarding his lack of English ability, which were countered with comments along the lines of You're the more qualified person on English than me? Who judges that? You with making major mistake? I only mentioned your flaws among the bunch you've made. That are not the minor mistakes. Even 5th grade students in Korea know that grammar. Somehow, I try to understand your struggles and excuses via the fact that Japanese get the lowest score on TOEFL exam in Asia. If you really were an English teacher, I concern about the future of your students. You're certainly not teaching English to native people, so "small mistakes" can possibly be understood. Besides the Ph.D students(candidates are more accurate) of yours doesn't mean that you have the degree. so not only does my English suck, but that is in some way linked to the English of all Japanese people sucking.hmmmm I also has this little gem added to my talk page by Appletrees I can' tolerate your impudence any more. You keep insulting me with your dirty mean tongue. Stupid? I think you can't see any context in my comments. You are the meanest and pathetic person in the world I've encountered in my life. I pity you. If you have graduated from any university in the US (I highly doubt you even graduated any college anywhere, because educated men can't be shallow just like you!), you would be required to take several humanistic and social science classes. Did you ever take any class in which Japanese war crimes would be understood among the international society? haha, even students from Japan said they felt shame of their ancestors because they didn't know and just learned with hugely edited textbooks. But you keep denying your origin and then that's making to look you stupid. You might be a Japanese-somewhere citizen. So what? You've produced offensive destructions on Korean-related articles and overly defended cruel Japanese war crime. In addition, you don't have any plausible arguments, then you choose to attack me with personal abuse that shows your true nature. Your English have been not near eloquence but close silliness and shallowness. So dream on! --Appletrees 09:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) oh and add to that some weird comments about 'death curse' 'rape' and 'hitler' I will be the first to admit, that I can have a less than friendly attitude when someone is being a pain in the ass, and if these comments were made by someone who didn't have a major chip on their shoulder re. Korea = Good. Japan = Bad. therefore if you don't love Korea, and hate Japan you = Bad. then I might care a little more. However this complaint has been made by someone who just got off a block for edit-warring, due to a report made by me. It is obvious what his motivation is. It is also obvious that any edit I make saying for example that someone Korean who killed someone Japanese is a murderer, is going to be met by his Korean nationalistic pride, and his assumption that I am insulting him personally due to his nationality. In short, 3 points. 1. This report was made by someone who is upset, due to a block that was the result of a report made by me. 2. I was not the sweetest editor in the world, but my attitude was hardly screaming insults, and was more than matched by his attitude. 3. The user who has reported me, seems to take offence to any comment that does not agree with his POV, and will consider my edits to be insults until I say something along the lines of "Japanese people are evil bastards, and Japan belongs to Korea" I feel annoyed that I have had to waste my precious time, typing a response - thank you if you managed to get to the end of this..Sennen goroshi 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Tewfik. I am forced to agree with you, I have not been the most civil of people, however the comments regarding his English ability, were more than balanced by his comments saying that my English was awful due to his assumption that Japanese people are basically poor at English (due to my name he assumed that I was Japanese and made comments based on that assumption) The comments regarding rape are a non-issue - I made one comment regarding rape, in a talk page, of an article not connected with this user, that was an off-colour joke - an admin saw it, busted my ass, and block me for 48hrs. That is old history, the other comment regarding rape, was not an insult, an accusation or anything negative, I was drawing a parallel in order to get my point across, if appletrees can't work out what I was trying to say, then I'm really sorry, but I don't see why I should be held responsible for a user who gets offended due to his misunderstanding of what I typed.Sennen goroshi 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Calm down, Sennen goroshi. As I mentioned like "Yesterday was Sunday", I implied enough to be myself a Christian so "REALLY" tried to forget or forgive what you've done to me for 1 month. If you didn't dare to revert my talk page several times yesterday, I would not need to suffer you here any more. The reverts and harsh, scornful, and teasing comments on MY TALK PAGE are worst to abandon any hope that you could be a constructive editor in a near future. You just wanted to insult me for your own sake. I didn't say "suck" or 'stupid' like you did to me. You firstly mentioned a "Racist", You firstly mention "Hitler", You firstly mention "Threat", You firstly mentioned MY ENGLISH and Stupidness, even "NOT TO STOP BREATHING" which is obviously a curse. You have to blame your own action, not me. Why did you stalk me and attack me right after my ban was out? Besides, why don't you forget to add the time infos, which are very critical. Don't cover things up. You started mocking me with your 'special languages'. My English can be your excuse at all. You're the one to draw this invisible editors just like me at the first place in English wiki What about the second frame in which your another victim, User talk:Ledtim was overly insulted by YOU? Please don't frame me with your tactic any more. Enough is Enough. I haven' said or implied that Japanese are bad as you imagine. I don't intimidate with Japanese POV pushers of course including you as I used to say to you. You're acting like a god to judge Koreans and Japanese. I have very good Japanese friends. Your behaviors do not harm my thought of them. You're just you being always like you. You feel annoyed? Why don't you think I CAN be annoyed by your personal attacks and insults? I have discussed two more Japanese editors on my talk page, but they didn't act like you. Even though consensus didn't reach to any further, they were all civil unlike you. Like you alway suggest your opponent to get a life instead of editing, why do you do that first? If so, I will really appreciate you from the first time to forever. But before that you need to deserve what you have done. Take care! --Appletrees 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I'm of the opinion that the only realistic method of resolving this is to prevent both parties from coming into contact with one another. Perhaps we could look at some sort of agreement between the users, not to edit within one another's vicinity, and each to refrain from entering into contact with the other - after all, both have clearly demonstrated over and over that they cannot work constructively together. However, I'm anxious that each are not restricted in contributing to Wikipedia; after all, we loose enough potential reformers through blocks and bans as it is. Nevertheless, we must consider the fundamental question of whether the benefit from allowing these two to edit without restriction outweighs the benefit from carefully refined contributions from the two, and furthermore whether the greater benefit would lie in their presence or absence here. Anthøny 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Decreasing the opportunities for friction would certainly solve the problem, but I'm not sure what kind of a practical arrangement could be worked out when they seem to share a common interest. Do the two of you think that you could try to avoid each other, and keep any conversation (or comments to third parties for that matter) extremely limited just to the content at hand, without any discussion of each other, your nationalities, or alleged motivations? TewfikTalk 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I think there is a lot of friction on the articles relating to Japan and Korea and there always will be, if Appletrees and I are not arguing, it will be someone else. I am more than willing to tone down the less that polite comments of mine, and concentrate on the edits. However while Appletrees might be justified in taking offence to comments relating to him personally, he needs to stop taking offence to edits that he does not agree with. There will always be disagreements relating to the Korea/Japan articles, and the only things we can strive for is absolute NPOV, cited facts, consensus and consistancy. If an edit which I do not agree with, falls within the above four, then I have no issue with it, I will however have an issue with every edit that does not a totally Korean POV being whined about with claims of Japanese POV and racism. I am stubborn, and I do react badly to what I consider to be stupidity - but when someone shows me that something is cited/backed up with consensus/etc, I am more than willing to lose my stubborness and accept their edit. With the following comment, I am trying to stay within the boundaries of civility, so I will choose my words carefully - Appletrees does not have the best English ability in the world, which is OK, he is not a native speaker and his level of English ability is higher than my ability in my second language - but he has misunderstand my comments in the past, at no time did I wish death on anyone, I really don't care enough about wikipedia, to wish anyone dead. Also he seems very emotional, I've never lost sleep or become emotional regarding wikipedia, this might be easier for both of us, if he was to lose a little (or all) of his emotion when editing and responding to edits. I will be stubborn if I don't agree with an edit, I will change something to what I consider to be correct, I will react if someone accuses me of pushing my POV - the other side of the coin is that I will react well to compromise, civility, consensus and facts. I do not wish to see Appletrees restricted from editing, he obviously has something to offer, and so do I, and sometimes you need two opposing opinions to achieve the correct result.Sennen goroshi 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I only want a justice and fairness under the same rule with which I was blocked by Anthony. Please don't forget that Sennen gorosh was once scarcely saved from getting any punishment except a slight warning when the first complaint was reported. This is the second report that he has violated WP:Civil. I deserved what I did in this community, so should he. Besides, he did such the disruptive behaviors not only to me, but also at least to two more people in the report. Regarding further possible conflicts with him in future, you don't need to worry. With the painful lesson of how people can bear such the horrifying grudges for a long time and wait for a right moment to frame and then revenge as they wish. Therefore, I won't talk him anywhere anytime after this report. As Sennen goroshi had a mockery of the block and brushed up my old pages to only view the block warning after I just got off the hook. His behavior is just like shooting twice to assure whether his enemy really is dead or not. He has humiliated and insulted me more than enough! I strongly suggest that he should be blocked for at least a day to reflect on his conducts in the light of all these evidences. Thanks. --Appletrees 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a special case, it's the "official" wikipedia account of one of the biggest websites in the world. I looked though the edits and it seems like it's only one user and that he understands the WP:COI policies. I'm willing to WP:AGF and unblock. Any objections. Jbeach ^sup 17:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just a couple of caveats... If Mr. Hoyt is willing to submit an email to a trusted member of the community, from his corporate email account, affirming his identity and confirming that he will be the only one editing from this account, then I don't see a problem here. I'd rather see a corporate editor editing from a known account per the notes lined out on the user page than have them trying to do it on the sly. In a lot of ways this should be the model for how we interact with corporate entities (minus the unfortunate block of the account of course). This would be better as the norm than as a special case.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock, it makes a change to see a user from a company who is willing to follow the correct policies, and this user seems to have no intention of trying to push POV or bias across, indeed they seem to be quite the opposite. I would recommend getting them to email from their company email account to confirm who they are though. I get the feeling that we are gonna start getting more and cases like this, where people's roles within a company specifically involves maintaining a wikipedia presence.--Jac16888 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock (and the undeletion of the user page). Perhaps it could be suggested that the account be renamed to be that of a nickname Mr. Hoyt selects? Perhaps we need to revisit WP:ROLE? But it does seem like this sort of principled editing approach, pledging to stay to the talk pages and provide sources to avoid COI, is exactly what we want to promote. Would that more PR departments took this approach rather than on the sly. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I have no objections to the unblock provided that it's clear only one person is behind the account, regardless of whether or not it's renamed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose the unblock because this looks like a role account. Additionally, I have reason to believe this user is acting in concert with a banned user. Orbitz can easily register a new account that doesn't use a corporate name. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps someone just latched onto this at WR as a way to get some shots in at the WMF. But perhaps you have information that is not public? ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I have information that is not public. Strongly urge not unblocking. Role accounts could invalidate our GFDL licensing. This is a technical/legal requirement, not something that should be decided by anybody except Wikipedia's legal counsel. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If you've got information that you are willing to share offline via email, I'd like to see it. I've been digging around and I came to the same conclusion Lar did.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Email me. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Sent. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We generally block all role accounts. We get dozens a day. I do think that the way we deal with them needs to be revisited though as we ask them to rename which drives them underground. Secretlondon 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thus my caveat above that the primary named editor confirms he is the only one using this account. I think Secretlondon (talk · contribs) is correct; the way we currently deal with this just drives editors to work below the surface, so to speak.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't take this the wrong way, but the letter you are asking for, are you qualified to make a legal determination about that letter being sufficient? Are you going to keep that letter for years on file and make it available if there's a copyright dispute in the distant future? This sort of thing needs to be handled by the WikiMedia office, not us volunteers. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. I would/should not be making those types of determinations. What I'm talking about narrowly, is that if someone asserts their identity as a representative of a company and commits to editing within the boundaries of policy, we should let them. One of the caveats I should have mentioned above was that the username needs to be changed as well per Jehochman's point on copyright... but that is why we discuss stuff rather than run off half-cocked and take action eh?--Isotope23 ^talk 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Perfect. If the username is changed to something that doesn't suggest it being a role account, I have no objection to unblocking. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Role accounts are blocked. This is not a special case. The only special case is User:Schwartz PR. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but ... the "keeping the letter" part is a non issue. The way to save a "letter" around here is to ask that it be sent to OTRS. Then when it is received, put the OTRS ticket number on the user page. That should suffice (unless we lose OTRS) for this sort of thing just as it does for copyright permissions. I have an OTRS ID and will be happy to go find the ticket number once the email is sent, given enough info to find it, like what email addy it came from. (if this isn't any good because we lose OTRS, we are in big trouble anyway as we have thousands of copyright permissions on file there)... As for the role account thing, maybe we do need to revisit it. I don't quite see why Schwartz PR gets a pass just because they are OUR pr firm. Trying to think out of the box here... What if this account identifies the names of the people behind it? Again, if worst comes to worst, rename the account to an ID of Mr. Hoyt's choice, and require that only Mr. Hoyt edit with it. Other OrbitzPR people can later edit with different accounts and they can all tag their accounts as being related to each other (hey, a use for userboxes!). But I very MUCH do not want to discourage corps editing if they abide by the COI guidelines, I want to encourage that. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

These are all good ideas, but this crosses into legal territory which is not for us to decide. I don't want to discourage constructive participation by corporate editors. Better to have them above board than sneaking around, but we need to involve the lawyers to change how we handle role accounts. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Let's not change policy ad hoc. If we need to get Mike Godwin involved, lets. But I suggest we figure out what we as a community WANT to do first, and then ask him so he can make the best use of his precious time. For now, for this account, it should be renamed to not be a role account, and then unblocked (or abandoned and a new account created in one user's name). If there later is a policy, a new account can be created (or this one reactivated). My point about the letter was that the retention bit was a non issue. We have a system for that, m:OTRS. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so where does this get discussed? WP:ROLE and the talk page lead to somewhat dusty and not very used Meta pages. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How about the Wikipedia:Village pump policy section? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

66.23.224.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just replaced most of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/66.23.224.223 with a request for courtesy blanking. If this was a user page, I would say it's his/her prerogative, but this is in Wikipedia space. On the other hand, we courtesy blank things like AfDs and this user has said he/she is leaving the project.

Popperian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) acknowledged using the 66.23.224.223 account which led to the original sock puppet report. That account was created after the AutoNOC article edited by 66.23.224.223 was deleted. Popperian then nominated close to 20 articles about competitors for deletion in a fit of pointiness. (These AfDs were speedy deleted; some have been reinitiated on a more methodical basis by established editors).

There's also this deletion of WP:COI/N content that should be considered for reversion.

Popperian/66.23.224.223's tenure here was tediuous and unpleasant both for Popperian/66.23.224.223 and our regular editors:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/66.23.224.223 (older version)
• User talk:Popperian (older version)
• User talk:66.23.224.223 (older version)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoNOC (older version)
  • AfD was subsequently courtesy blanked
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#AutoNOC (older version)

What do others think?

Thanks for your advice, --18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, there was a thread started on WP:AN asking for the Popperian account to be deleted. Looks like a number of courtesy blankings have been done, but I would kind of question courtesy blanking of an SSP page, myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose account, spamming United Nation of Islam. Ignoring warnings, refusing to listen to reason, and insulting editors who remove the offending material. Has spammed the page 4 times in the last 24 hours. When I logged on this morning, I issued a warning for WP:3RR violation. Useruser1x has also claimed to be taking the matter to ArbCom, but has not filed the appropriate forms. I have also informed Useruser1x of the probable rejection of the matter by ArbCom. Michaelbusch 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have become involved as I originally semi-protected the page several days back when the article originally had POV additions made by anons, and am now listed as a "party" in this ArbCom "request". I have also become extremely busy in real life and have not been able to look at this. Would a uninvolved Admin who has some time available take a look at Talk:United Nation of Islam and see what's up? My impression is that User:Useruser1x is a novice-ish user who wants to add POV to the article and does not understand how edit within Wikipedia's guidelines, however I have not looked into things deeply recently. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also informed User:Useruser1x of this thread. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's more to the history of United Nation of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) than what's mentioned here. I asked User:Masonuc back in mid-September why he made this edit claiming that Royall Elliot Jenkins is "borderline illiterate and unable to speak clearly or intelligently." (That sort of thing violates WP:BLP. Masonuc answered saying, "You cannot allow this cult to advertise freely on wikipedia without a thoughtful, neutral position." Masonuc later retracted those claims and replaced them with something more neutral, although this edit at User talk:Useruser1x still looks rather libelous. I think there's a slow edit war going on between Masonuc (talk · contribs) and Useruser1x (talk · contribs), and I'm not even sure what the "correct" version of the page is. The edit war appears to have started with this edit in mid-August, so neither of them look exactly like new editors. Most of the article isn't supported by reliable sources anyway (which is no surprise). Neither Masonuc nor Useruser1x has actually discussed the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if this issue actually has to go to arbitration. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman is correct that Masonuc also has a problem on this article. I've had to issue repeated warnings about breaching WP:CIVILITY and making personal attacks (anything further and I'll ask for a short block for Masonuc). I also started watching this article when an anon was blanking the page, and have got to feeling that I am caught between two fires. Re. them being new editors: the dispute may have been going for several months, but Useruser1x hasn't been editing anything other than UNOI, and so may have remained unaware of the rules of Wikipedia until recently. Masonuc also seems to have an axe to grind, but has done some editing outside this particular page. Michaelbusch 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also am very much annoyed by Useruser1x's continued accusations that I am fabricating information in this article, when all I have done is to cite external sources, including UNOI itself. I must also exclude myself from further deliberations, as I fear that my neutrality has been compromised by Useruser1x's continued insults (see Talk:United Nation of Islam). Michaelbusch 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman , I have not discussed this matter with Masonuc because he has offered very little participation on the UNOI discussion page. Also Michaelbush has commandeered the United Nation of Islam article and has incorporated his edits with those of Masonuc. Since Michaelbush’s first edit on United Nation of Islam’s article on October 17, 2007; Michaelbush has made 41 edits to the United Nation of Islam article, I made 10 edits and Masonuc has made 7. UNOI history page.

I am advocating a non-bias article with multiple major news and business journal citations which includes but is not limited to the Christian Science Monitor, Kansas City Business Journal, Kansas City Star, Kansas City Kansan, Associated Press etc. I have found approximately 50 such articles and used many of them (20) in the article. Here is the link to the article.

Here are the diffs between Masonuc and Michaelbush’s version. Michaelbush’s version is heavily referenced from one (1) tabloid style reference and according to him it is also a bias article. Even after admitting that his primary source is bias, he also has disregarded approximately 50 non-bias references. In addition to that, I have listed several examples of non-factual content in Michaelbush’s version and he still to this day ignores the evidence that supports the non-factual nature of his article. I am not against adding controversy to the article however I am against the blatant un-factual nature of Masonuc and Michaelbush’s combined version; the overbearingly negative tone (because of his heavy use of one tabloid style reference unbalanced by majority non-bias references apx(50)) and his reluctance to dialogue concerning the blatant errors in their version .

My first edits to the United Nation of Islam article were saturated with explanations of content. I have since continued to edit the article to remove them and consequently remove any concerns of POV or Advert. It is a work in progress.

I recommend that everyone review Talk:United Nation of Islam). Useruser1x 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear... where to start. The edit history speaks for itself. Andala (talk · contribs) is at the root of the problems, consitently removing sourced information that alludes to the organisation's "darker side". See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Andala for a list of socks he's used when he's been blocked. I can keep reverting again and again, but this shouldn't be happening really. He never breaks the 3RR, and blocking isn't something that can be done AFAIK, because it's technically a content dispute. I've filed an RFC, to no avail (no-one has responded). Several other editors have happened on the article, but none have removed valid sourced information like Andala does. Frankly, I'm fed up, and I refuse to admit that nothing can be done about this. Ideas? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this article for a while, and it seems to me that Andala is obviously pushing a PoV here. He/she never provides sufficient explanation for removing sourced information, and the only sourced information that is deleted is that which potentially shows the organisation in a bad light. Some sort of protective action needs to be taken. Yeanold Viskersenn 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Not an ideal solution, but it'll work for now I guess :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony300 has just posted this on his user page; I think this is the right place to report this sort of thing. —Salmar ^(talk) 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've popped the page up for G10 speedy deletion (attack page) and reported him to AIV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and indef-blocked the user. --John 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Ararat arev (talk · contribs) under his latest incarnation Haiks (talk · contribs) is spamming Armenian history articles again. Please ban the new account. --Folantin 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryulong. IrishGuy ^talk 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

These are his/ her contributions here. Every single one of his/ her edits had to be reverted by me and others. They are just plain vandalism. He/ she seems to be talking about how great bands are and talking about how hot Angela Gossow is and how good genres are. This user needs to be warned and/ or banned. I can't even explain how ridiculous his/ her edits were. Navnløs 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No new edits since your last warning; maybe she's stopped. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism only account, and if they continue, report to WP:AIV. Tiptoety 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV and they did not block due to a lack of warns. Tiptoety 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles have been the subject of incessant vandalism from anon IPs. I and others have requested that they be protected, but that has not occurred. The answer was that they needed sources before action would be taken. They are now sourced, the vandalism is continuing, and still they are not being protected. How many anon IP vandals must be coddled before hard working editors can catch a break around here? Jeffpw 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected the two sisters for 48 hours to see if the fuss dies down. The level of IP vandalism to Hot House Entertainment doesn't really seem to warrant it so I've left it unprotected for the moment. — iridescent 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate the help I get from people here. Jeffpw 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who's good with range blocks check out the activity on User talk:Misza13? WODUP ^(?) 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just done here - Alison ^❤ 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Ok - rangeblocked 91.108.192.0/18 for three hours. It's part of the Orange UK network - Alison ^❤ 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. :) WODUP ^(?) 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Shabiha has consistently insulted me personally over content disputes across multiple articles for quite some time now, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching:

• 18:55, 26 September 2007
• 19:02, 26 September 2007
• 20:29, 27 September 2007

And from my previous warnings to this person:

• 23:16, 26 September 2007
• 23:20, 26 September 2007
• 22:57, 27 September 2007

I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy:

• 19:26, 29 October 2007

I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. With that in mind, I ask for an admin to take a serious look at this, as given the amount of warnings i've given consistently and the civility i've displayed despite these insults I think this warrants more than just another warning on this person's talk page. I can find many more diffs like the above if need be as well. MezzoMezzo 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you can take this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. The diffs don't seem to show anything that's immediately blockable. This looks like a new user who is having difficulty communicating. With a bit of advice from neutral parties, the situation could improve greatly. It's better to attempt to solve the problem by agreement. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Would you advise me to take what i've written here and simply transplant it over there? MezzoMezzo 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I really am not sure what's going on here. This guy (or girl, whatever), earlier, had a category created called Category:Albums that rock!, which was deleted. He (or she... just using he from now on) later took a page called A Mi Manera, which I created as a redirect, and turned it into some page about some show on Univision that's supposedly coming out. It got AfD'd. He exhibited bad behavior towards other users, and I admittedly made a mistake in leaving a snide remark on his talk page about it. He's now claiming to be one of the stars of the show "A Mi Manera" and leaving strange messages on my talk page, one of which he signed from another user account. He's on his final warning for removing the AfD notice, but I don't exactly know what I should do here. JuJube 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't really know if i should be here, but i am a guy. I AM a star on that show. And I promise I will have a good attitude from now on. I admit i was rude to JuJube. Im sorry. And delete the page if you must.Empezardesdecero123 02:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which other username did he sign under? Tiptoety 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Empezardesdecero123 received final warn for attacks. Tiptoety 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done with this for now, the behavior's stopped and there's really no need to proceed further unless he's disruptive again. JuJube 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, after a RfC link and discussion at ANI link this user was put under a topic ban on homeopathy pseudoscience and other fringe science issues. He was allowed to continue to edit Talk:Homeopathy, where he has begun to persistently push for speculative and unreliable sources to be included into the article. Could an admin look over his edits and think about either warning him or re-blocking him, because I think he is acting in a tenditious and disruptive fashion. Tim Vickers 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been placed on any topic ban whatsoever. I deny that I have pushed for unreliable sources. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You have been community banned (link) from the homeopathy article, but you have not been blocked, yet. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic ban was on homeopathy, diff, where the current problem has occurred. This user was advised only 12 days ago to leave this topic alone and move to other areas diff. Tim Vickers 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the homeopathy article since the editing restriction was imposed. Whig 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If his editing at Talk:Homeopathy has been disruptive or tendentious, it would seem logical to extend the topic ban to include the talk page as well as the Homeopathy article itself. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond, but I've been watching the talk page, and I think this falls short of that. He's basically been arguing that an absurd spiritualist-flavored article from a one-time physicist should be included. However, I think his misunderstandings of RS are good faith, and until he demonstrates otherwise, he shouldn't be entirely banned. Until then I agree with this comment. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as the "quantum mechanics" article, he was pushing in the section two above (link) for a speculative article on water memory to be included. This isn't a one-off incident but a long-term pattern. Whig has been editing Wikipedia since April 2004, if he hasn't grasped the core policies by now, I don't think there is much hope of him ever doing so. Tim Vickers 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused by the sock puppet accusation. I thought he was fairly a new user, but he should know better. In that case I would go along with any sanction others might find appropriate, including a total ban from Homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a difficult discussion because it is a polarizing topic. Most editors who are regularly involved have made it known by one means or another that they are anti-homeopathy.

I believe Whig tries to maintain a neutral POV. I can show instances to support this if anyone is interested.

Almost any time that the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points, or taking the same line of argument. This must make it difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

As to the suggestion earlier today that Whig was a “sockpuppet” of Sm565, I think it was disgraceful and abusive. Anyone who followed the discussion when Sm565 was present should know that accusation was not true. When challenged, the editor who made the accusation admitted as much.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could make the post they did AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack. Wanderer57 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false statements based on assumptions of bad faith. I asked Whig a straightforward question in very good faith. I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not accuse or suggest anything. I just asked a question and got a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately I clicked the wrong place and placed it in a section by itself, instead of my original intention to let it follow in a thread where Whig's disruptive editing style was being discussed. I then just gave it a heading, which made my comment seem alone and thus more provocative, instead of part of a situation and thread where it would have seemed more natural. I can see now that the talk page was not the place to do it and I then moved it to Whig's talk page. I apologize for my poor judgment. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) That sockpuppet idea was just strange, but what we are talking about here is a long-term inability of Whig to understand WP:NPOV and WP:V and how this leads to disruptive behaviour in homeopathy, a subject he seems obsessed with. Tim Vickers 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that I fail to understand those policies. I believe I have been maintaining NPOV. Whig 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just extend the ban of him editing the homeopathy to commenting on it's talk page. Problem solved. Who agrees? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with these monstrous and draconian measures. Whig has made numerous useful contributions to this talk page and has engendered good debate in a civil manner. These folks who complain are all anti homeopathy and act like vile gangsters who stifle discussion and who act as bullies. Just because they want GA status and then to use that to become admins. It stinks. Admins ought to stop the bullying and intimdation of editors to that article which is still crap and will remain so because of the antics of these editors who complain here about Whig. My ten cents FWIW. Peter morrell 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Characterizing editors who disagree with you as "vile gangsters" engaged in "antics" is extremely helpful, and contributes strongly to reasoned debate. Raymond Arritt 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article that Whig has been pushing to be included doesn't really appear to be a reliable source to me. (Although I would commend everyone in the talk forum for being polite during the whole discussion). I don't know enough of the history to have an opinion on a warning/ban though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a content dispute, then? Whig 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it is but what have you been doing there just a few days after the article ban? Would it be wiser to disengage for a while from the talk page? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I was expressly welcomed to continue editing the talk page by the admin who imposed editing restrictions. Whig 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment here, but I can not at the moment because I'm at work. I ask that before any action be taken, I can comment. I'll be commenting in a few hours. Mercury 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I may make a suggestion, the editors who are bringing this incident report are welcome to pursue RfAr, which several people in the RfC encouraged them to do. Whig 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May I draw everyone's attention to this? He evidently made a user copy of the article he's banned from editing just to add a {{POV}} tag. Then decided he liked the {{Balance}} tag better. (Then Fyslee, quite rightly, nowiki'd all the tags so that it wouldn't be category-sorted.) Still, though... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange indeed, especially the discussion page, where Whig describes his user-space homeopathy page by writing "This is the NPOV fork". (link). I hesitated earlier before describing Whig's attitude towards homeopathy as an "obsession", but that now looks like a pretty accurate description. Tim Vickers 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, from Oct 16 (when it was clarified that Whig would be participating in discussion but not editing the article) to Oct 25 (when I put in this comment: "Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over") the discussion in Talk:Homeopathy was generally amicable and productive.

Also, on Oct 25 Phoenix 15 posted this message: "I've checked the article against the GA criteria and it appears to meet them all. It's quite a good article. I'll promote it to GA status." Wanderer57 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have not really looked into to Homeopathy talk, but I would encourage a request for arbitration at this point. There is no point in tightening and tightening restrictions, I do believe this is more complicated and a community based restriction, may not be appropriately applied if it involves talk space. Send this to arbitration for review. Mercury 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe RfARb is the way to go, given the RfC findings and ongoing issues with talk-page abuse (disclaimer: User:Whig has moved on to Talk:Christine Maggiore where I've encountered him). On another note, it's inappropriate for a user to maintain a copy of a page he's been banned from editing in his userspace for the apparent purpose of creating a POV fork. I've deleted it. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have been an editor on Christine Maggiore since 2005. [53] Whig 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More community sanctions might work better than an arbitration. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have good cause to dispute my user conduct, why not file an RfAr? Whig 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Wikidudeman, if there is a dispute still, RFAR is the way to go... I will oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Mercury 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

They take too long and are too much trouble. I see no need for an RFAr, A simple community block from editing the homeopathy talk page should suffice. It can run concurrent with your current 6 month ban from editing the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the common reasons for RfCs and other such actions is to reduce disruption. An RFAr is one of the most disruptive and time consuming procedures around, and thus would be very counterproductive to the purpose of reducing disruption. Other more effective and quick sanctions are available to any admin who has the courage to act immediately. A topic block of all homeopathic subjects - including talk pages - would help, just for starters. If the same long dragged out discussions without productivity continue, then other types of blocks could be considered. While civility issues mustn't be ignored, civil editors who disrupt are often the most disruptive because they are allowed to continue for so long. They have the same effect as 3RR violators (in spirit) who never revert four times, but edit war constantly. Action, not endless and disruptive DR, is what is needed so we can get on with actual editing. -- Fyslee / talk 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury in part. Talk page restrictions should be made much more hesitantly than namespace, and only with confidence that the user has nothing to add. I might support a community ban later, but we haven't had enough experience with this user under the existing block. Maybe revisit this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the discussion closely - although not been involved in editing the article - and I can state quite categorically that this whole discussion would not have occurred if the proponents had not been so closed to disagreeing sentiments. It seemed at times as if a cabal had been formed whereby alternative points - accompanied by reasoned argument - were discounted merely on the basis of "I do not believe it therefore it is not true, therefore we shall oppose this contributor". I found it disagreeable in the extreme and unworthy of Wikipedia. I would call for an experienced and previously uninvolved editor to review ALL the contributions made with a view to assessing the actions of the proponents of action against Whig. docboat 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with docboat's statement. Whig 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "closed to disagreeing sentiments"? Homeopathy is clearly false. Thus, it is reasonable to oppose those who say that it is true, with no reason other than that belief. There's no way to be open to disagreeing sentiments any more than one could be open to sentiments that water is made of cheese. -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the whole issue neatly encapsulated, Amarkov. In your opinion, it is so, but there is plenty of opinion out there - with references and evidence - which would disagree with you. It is right that all opinions - referenced and backed up - should be on display. And FYI, there is plenty of water in cheese. Now Whig may not have the best approach to dealing with the array of editors opposed to him, but the reaction to his editing is disproportionate. All too late now, I suppose, but your comments underline the unfairness of the whole episode. At least, IMHO. docboat 04:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not clearly false to me. Whig 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the recent discussion that brought us here, that this is much ado about very little. As I mentioned above, from Oct 16 to Oct 25 the homeopathy discussion was generally amicable and productive. It then split over the merits of two papers by Alex Hankey, Ph.D. Isn't there some simple Wikimechanism to get a ruling on these papers, so life can continue? Wanderer57 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a simple mechanism, it's called consensus. The consensus on the talk page was that the Hankey papers were ridiculous and unusable, except to describe Hankey's opinion which itself is not notable. The problem is that Whig continues to agitate for his preferred changes well after consensus has gone against him. Skinwalker 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this pragmatically, since Whig does not seem to have convinced any other editor that it is appropriate to cite the Hankey papers in Homeopathy and since Whig is not editing the article, there is not really a current problem. Wanderer57 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to bring the content dispute here to ANI. I intend to continue to press that source forward for balance in the present article, however. Whig 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, the inclusion of links to Barrett without balance is an NPOV violation in my opinion. Whig 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I would continue to develop this source to see whether he is notable in his own right, etc. Whig 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit more to say, but not in ANI. Whig 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Press that source forward"? The only way to gain acceptance for the source is to develop a consensus. You've failed to convince any other editor of its appropriateness, regardless of their POV's. Your approach is not only failing to generate consensus, but is actively disruptive (see here or your current RfC). Continuing to "press the source forward" in the face of consensus, using this sort of approach, is textbook tendentious editing and, one would presume, the basis for the calls to ban you from the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of things I have not yet done. How I would press it would be an NPOV dispute. Whig 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that we could settle this matter without the agony of an arbcom proceeding, but it is becoming increasingly clear that will be impossible. The only alternative would be for everyone simply to ignore Whig's tendentious use of the Talk page. In practice, there will always be people who can't resist the temptation to respond. Raymond Arritt 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt puts forward a good alternative. There is already a section on the talk page for discussion of the Hankey papers. If anyone WANTS to continue to discuss those papers there, Wikipedia has lots of storage capacity. (Personally, I have formed a pretty definite opinion of the papers, and likely won't discuss them further.) Wanderer57 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do now? It seems like this is a dead end here. I am willing to have RfAr if that is what some editors want to do to prevent me from continuing to edit in Talk:Homeopathy. If I am not blocked or banned from doing so, I intend to continue as I have been, because I have not seen evidence that I am doing anything wrong here. If some other accommodation can be reached short of RfAr, I would be glad to discuss it. Whig 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another "accomodation ... short of RfAr" can be used. You can already be blocked (without an RfAr) based on decisions in previous RfArs. Advocacy is forbidden here. Your expressed intention (above) to continue to press this issue in spite of a clear consensus against you is POV pushing and disruption. So on at least three counts you can be blocked from editing any article related to homeopathy (and its talk pages): (1) advocacy, (2) POV pushing (3) disruption. Any admin can do it right now at the drop of a hat and they will be thanked for it (I'll give them a double barnstar!). If you carry such editing habits to other subjects, you can end up getting banned indefinitely from all of Wikipedia, and it can be done by any admin without an RfAr (which itself is a very disruptive process and should be reserved for extreme situations). Courageous admins have carried out such blocks many times and have saved Wikipedia and its editors from lots of grief and wasted time. -- Fyslee / talk 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to say anything improper to say in ANI, but no block has been forthcoming in several days of asking for one, and if I am blocked I may request RfAr anyhow to review it. I'm not sure what purpose is being served by continuing here. Whig 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your expressed intentions are keeping this alive. Until you either stop editing or clearly bow to consensus and stop pushing this agenda, you will be under observation and risk getting blocked for disruption. Your intentions are incriminating. -- Fyslee / talk 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to maintain an NPOV dispute until dispute is resolved. Whig 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your "expressed intentions":

• "I intend to continue to press that source forward ..."
• "I intend to continue as I have been,..."

Such intentions against consensus are disruptive and fail to respect your fellow editors. -- Fyslee / talk 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I propose this

• Whig gets a topic block, including talk pages, from editing any alternative medicine or related subject for say, one month, after which he will be on probation.

Any disagreements? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. -- Fyslee / talk 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Given his stated intent to continue tendentious editing until he gets his way, and the objection of at least one admin to an outright block, this is the best of several imperfect options. Raymond Arritt 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mercury said he would oppose any sanction involving a talk page. Whig 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this issue is currently about disruption of talk pages, that suggestion is rather impotent and doesn't make much sense. Talk pages are not havens of refuge for disrupters of talk pages. They can be blocked from access to those talk pages. -- Fyslee / talk 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with Mercury, we came up with the possibility of Whig getting one post per talk page per day. Let's try that, and see how it goes.

So, to summarise:

• Whig may not edit any articles related to alternative medicine, for one month, after which he will be on probation, including 1RR. Tendentious editing after the month may result in either an indefinite ban from alternative medicine, or, if necessary, from Wikipedia.
• Whig is encouraged to find non-controversial articles in any other interests he may have to edit.
• In the alternative-medicine related articles Whig is banned from, he is limited to one post per talk page per day.

°Are we agreed? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. First, because you are broadening the ban without cause. If you are going to limit me on Talk:Homeopathy, that does not mean you should limit me elsewhere. Second, it really only defers arbitration in my opinion if editors continue to object to my maintaining an NPOV dispute. Whig 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. If you aren't willing to agree to a compromise, and have made very clear that you are unwilling to refrain from tendentious editing, I don't see any choice but a block. Any objections to that? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not from me; given the near-unanimity at Whig's user-conduct RfC and a lack of interest in modifying his approach, I think that's a reasonable action at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. It is done. He is blocked for one month, with indef block as the next step up. I did hope we could reach a compromise whereby he could be encouraged to work on non-controversial pages so that he could learn Wikipedia ettiquette, but, well. He's announced intent to continue tendentious editing, and he refuses to admit even the possibility he might be acting wrongly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection. I don’t think the discussion on this page takes into account the underlying dynamic of the homeopathy talk, and I find it hard to see this as a neutral forum.

Talk:Homeopathy is largely a discussion with one editor who, on a regular basis, is arguing for a “more balanced” article against six or so strongly anti-homeopathy editors. For that one to address the issues raised by the other six, he may have to contribute six times as often, and address a variety of viewpoints. In this situation, it is easy to label the one as “tendentious” and the other six as “reasonable”, no matter if sometimes they take positions that strongly POV.

Let me be clear. I’m NOT saying the one is always reasonable, or the six are always strongly POV. I’m saying the dynamic favors the six, and disadvantages the one.

The homeopathy discussion sometimes resembles a very lopsided tag-team match. When that happens, the dispute is brought here (or to a RfC) to be adjudicated. I think that the same lopsided approach gets brought here to a significant degree.

- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -

Re suggestion of a limit of one post per day in a discussion. In a discussion like homeopathy where there may be 60 posts in one day, that does not allow for any significant participation. Wanderer57 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not an easy subject, but that just isn't enough to give a free pass to tendentious, disruptive editors who constantly attack all the other editors. If Whig were less of an extreme case, he might get a bye. In this case, no, sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam: I do not think you qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case. For example, you took the position in talk:homeopathy that a clearly POV site is preferable to a neutral site that uses a blue font. If that is a neutral position, I am the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Also, I object that between asking if there were objections, and giving a "ruling", you allowed about 80 minutes on a Sunday afternoon. Wanderer57 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And asked the Administrator's IRC channel. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. How does asking the administrator’s IRC channel allow participation by interested parties who take part of Sunday off? Wanderer57 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that advocates of fringe or minoritarian viewpoints have a tough road to hoe on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. WP:WEIGHT codifies this. Of course minority or fringe viewpoints can be represented and covered, but advocates who relentlessly push for favorable treatment of widely discredited fringe viewpoints and refuse to bow to any sort of consensus or Wikipedia policy don't last long (or rather, they shouldn't but often do). MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell: I do understand and respect that Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference work.

My particular concern now is that in my opinion, the administrator who made the ruling on Whig does not qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case. I emphasize 'in this particular case'. I am not confident that he, or other people involved in the homeopathy discussion, are able to step back and objectively consider my concerns raised above about the "underlying dynamic of the homeopathy talk". Last and least, the 80 minutes allowed to raise objections was not adequate. I would appreciate your feedback on these points. Wanderer57 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Wanderer - the admin who is blocking is most definitely not neutral, and the ruling is suspect. This needs to be addressed at the admin level - leaving aside the merits or lack of them in blocking Whig, this is highly suspect and detracts from the serious nature of Wikipedia. How does one go about getting an admin reviewed for behaviour? docboat 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can not leave the merits aside when reviewing an admin on admin actions. I'm neutral here, and Adam made a good call. The decision to block is not suspect, and I do not believe it detracts from the Pedia. With regards, Mercury 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree and support Adam here. Please see my talk page and Whig's for what I am willing to do. Regards, Mercury 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And I support Mercury: Whig is a borderline case, but one that has stated extreme reluctance to change. If he becomes willing to change, and acknowledge the problems brought up in the RfC, we may be able to make a good editor out of him yet. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Support this block. If Whig had been willing to listen to the good advice given to him by Seraphimblade two weeks ago - "work on editing in other areas, perhaps ones in which you don't have such strong views." - this could have been avoided. However, Whig's obsession with the homeopathy article, inability to respect consensus, and complete lack of understanding of policy makes him a liability. Tim Vickers 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the interest of disclosure: I plan on unblocking, pending Adam's concurrence on his talk page. Mercury 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed - Mercury has come up with reasonable restrictions, though I honestly expect it's just going to mean Whig ends up indef blocked next week, instead of blocked for a month now. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there something about good faith? Wanderer57 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mercury and Adam are bending over backwards and giving Whig every conceivable opportunity to change his egregious behaviour.

Also, [AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 07:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim - Thank you for the feedback. Perhaps egregious is too strong a word here. Adam, who is clearly not a fan of Whig, wrote: "Whig is a borderline case".

My point about good faith was that after agreeing with the approach Mercury put forward, it was unnecessary and negative to add: "I honestly expect it's just going to mean Whig ends up indef blocked next week, instead of blocked for a month now." Wanderer57 16:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On the main page is the "Did you know" column. It is overdue for change as noted by the clock (which is on red alert). The next update page is ready. It just has to be moved to the main page but this needs admin action.

Next update page is here [54]

Thank you. I usually hold off on mentioning this, but it does seem more time urgent than some of the ANI issues. DYK is on the main page, the most viewed page of WP. Archtransit 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought... can't we get a bot to do the page moving... and it would just occur every 24 hours or whatever? I'm not fully into what the tast requires, but there ought to be some way to automate this, instead of having "red alerts". —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, since this is moving content to the main page, it has to be checked / done by an admin (well, another "trusted user" would be good as well, but since we only have the distinction editor / admin, it has to be an admin). The chance of vandalism and pranks on the main page would be way too big if this was moved by an adminbot. Fram 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again (NOW), it is about 6 hours late. There is a red alert tag (bot generated). DYK is supposed to be changed every 8 hours so in 2 hours, we would have missed a full cycle. I've already moved the hooks to the "next update" page but need admin help to move it to the main page. I've notified 4 admin who frequent DYK who have edited in the last few hours (but they may be asleep). Other admin who frequent DYK haven't edited in many hours. Thank you for your help. Archtransit 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot...I've never done it before so please check to make sure I didn't screw it up. — Scientizzle 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asleep; I was just in a meeting at work. I think sleeping would have been more satisfying than the meeting, since nobody complains about my crappy software when I'm sleeping. On a more positive note, DYK could use more help with people selecting content for the next update page. I looked at DYK earlier this morning and noticed it was out of date, but the next update page had only one entry selected for it, and I didn't have time to select a number of entries and update the template. Non-admin users can select stuff for the next update, and I'd appreciate the help. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you're like me, people still complain about your crappy software when you're sleeping - you just don't hear it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I updated the next update but needed admin help to transclude it. Thanks. Resolved. Archtransit 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on my previous warnings with the user, and for the comments at [55]. I recommend a short block of the user, as his mentor. Time period is up to yall. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Sorry I had to do it as your proxy. I'll leave a short note, but you can explain the reasoning more fully. I think that is long enough to give a lesson, but the attempt in the diff has some redeeeming qualities, so I am not willing to go a week. GRBerry 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a problem if someone had to do it as proxy. Based on edit habits, he edits while I am at classes, etc. In future cases, if the user needs to be blocked for any reason whatsoever, all I ask is someone just tell me it occurred. I will not contest it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I resign as his mentor, seeing I am not effective enough in dealing with this user. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• cough* I'm sorry to see you go. I had high hopes for you as his mentor. Kyaa the Catlord 07:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this user is perhaps less reformable than was hoped. I don't think this is a failing on Zscout's part. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentorships rarely succeed, in my experience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree it wasn't a failing on Zscout's side. He's been damn good as mentors go. Kyaa the Catlord 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Zscout has resigned this (and all his other) mentorship positions, there is no point in reinforcing Zscout's mentorship lessons. As such, my block is no longer preventative, and by policy needs to end, so I am undoing it. PR knows that we will attempt to make mentorship work. (Although I'd go further than Will; I'm not aware of any cases where mentorship has worked.)

PR has also emailed me explaining the reasons for the diff pointed out above. As I thought ("some redeeming qualities") the diff had a reasonable purpose - it was intended to move toward dispute resolution. I think Jaakobou and PR are likely to end up in front of ArbComm due to inability to resolve their dispute. As there have been before and continue to now be other similar complaints about J's behavior by editors in good standing, I fully expect him/her to end up sanctioned by ArbComm when that happens. GRBerry 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have no issues with the unblock. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have warned at his user talk,(Dominique Blanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) but issue seems serious with User:Jeffpw helping him out in his vandalism efforts. Normal vandalism is easy to fight out, rather joy to, but this sock-puppet vandalism(somebody pretending as new user) really hurts/pains. He changes cited urls to 404 links, which is long term agenda of removing perticular sentence. Please give a look at his talk page im helpless only because he is supported by another user User:Jeffpw Lara_bran 10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So we have accusations of sock puppetry, vandalism and a wiki conspiracy to thwart Lara bran in his or her edits. A quick look at the article history and talk page should show what's really going on. I have already contacted Alison about this situation, as she is the admin most familiar with Lara bran's editing pattern. Jeffpw 11:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, one might want to also check out the revision history of Greek love to see some of Lara's other encyclopedic edits. Jeffpw 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And she has once again reverted on Pederasty to her own version, against the versionm which was achieved with consensus on the talk page. I do not want to even approach a 3rr, so ask that somebosy impartial look at it and revert if they think it's warranted. Jeffpw 11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While ignoring the content changes, there is some merit to the claims but whether it's vandalism or careless editing I'd not like to speculate. For example this edit does break links and removes ISBN numbers and on one occasion a page number. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominique Blanc is a new editor who is still learning about formatting. I assume good faith and think it was an honest mistake. Lara bran is an editor who has edit warred and wiki-lawyered on more than one article, and thinks s/he has a 3rr quota each day. S/he has a history of reverting incessantly on articles, in defiance of consensus and without discussion. S/he has been warned by many editors and admins alike. This post to ANI is both meritless and meretricious. Why Lara has not been blocked before this is beyond me. Oh, I forgot. S/he has. This is a new account after the last account s/he had was banned. Need I say more? Jeffpw 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say I simply sigh and buckle in for whatever the latest from user Lara Bran. Their language skills seems to change greatly whether seeking an admin to systematically justify whatever is needed ("im helpless") or wikilawyering. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Alice and editors being harrassed. or User:Vinay412. Benjiboi 11:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh look! Here's yet another sock of this user! I wonder how many more socks we will find if we dig hard enough. Jeffpw 12:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop ad hominem arguments? I will appreciate if you talk to the matter, where clear attempt to vandalize sources of an article.. Lara_bran 13:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dominique Blanc edits urls not just in this article[56], but also other related articles[57]. It seems nothing but deliberate effort to vandalize. It clearly looks single purpose accounts for pederasty related articles. Dispute is certainly not for content, but vandalism of reliable source urls. Lara_bran 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominique has already replied on the article talk page and on my own page that he has had trouble before when formatting. He is working now to repair the refs. This situation is known to all regular editors on that article, and has been discussed. Nobody but Lara bran (who has contributed nothing but chaos to that article) has any concerns about Dominique's intentions. I will remind Lara once again to reread WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA. S/he seems to have forgotten these key guidelines and policies. Jeffpw 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted Lara bran is not a "she" - "she" is an account of the indef banned User:Vinay412, himself a sock of indef banned user Kuntan - see User_talk:Lara_bran/Archive_1#Unblock, [58] and [59]. Lara bran/Vinay412/Kuntan was on a final warning already, but I see no reason not to block the Lara bran account given the current activity, and will do so fairly shortly. Neil ☎ 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,. Neil. you have made editors too numerous to mention very happy with your post. Jeffpw 13:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Kuntant/Vinay412/Lara bran was on a final chance, has clearly continued to edit disruptively, and is causing a great deal more harm than good. I have indefinitely blocked Lara bran (talk · contribs), and submit this block for review - please provide feedback. Neil ☎ 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my faith in the system. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect that there will be continued pleading for unblocking of Lara bran (talk · contribs) on the basis that they are not the same person as Kuntan (talk · contribs). Lara bran has admitted repeatedly to being vinay412 (talk · contribs) but denied being Kuntan and I am inclined to believe that. I would request that any admin considering unblocking be aware that, even if they are completely unrelated to Kuntan, they have a disruptive record in their own right. As such, I would urge any admin considering such an unblock to familiarise themselves with the actions of vinay412 and his sock puppets. See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vinay412 & Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412 (2nd). --AliceJMarkham 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Lara Bran has been phenomenally disruptive and members of Wikiproject LGBT are more than familiar with his tactics by now. 3rr-limit revert warring on the same articles and templates day after day. POV-pushing, a career of sock-puppetry, etc, etc - Alison ^❤ 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sarah_stallwood. Looks like this user only contribs have been trying to get her company their own page. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems she is working through the New Article Creation page. I see no harm at this point as she has not actually created a mainspace article yet. It is unclear to me that the article would be spam if properly written although that remains to be seen. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

People with a COI are encouraged to use the New-Article-Request page to have an article written. It's better to be able to work with them then try to fight them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be nice if somebody actually told her on her Talk page what the problem is. Corvus cornix 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see that User:Bfigura has done that. Corvus cornix 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be especially nice to COI editors who try to comply with policy by disclosing their interest and working with the community via talk pages, WikiProjects and the new article request page. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Hopefully the autobio warning wasn't too bitey. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue I'd have with the template warning is that it doesn't quite "fit". It essentially urges this user to not do something they're already not doing, and to do something they are already doing... some hand crafted text afterwards acknowledging that they are indeed complying with the guidelines and thanking them for that might have been a good add on. As for the article decline... I don't know that page's norms very well but the topic seems notable enough. The material this user provided would form a good basis for research into the topic, but there was enough there already for a stub. Is the way that page works that we expect requestors to write fully and correctly formed articles, or just to request that a volunteer do so? I thought the latter although WP:AFC isn't precise on the point. That's not to say that if no volunteer wants to that someone has a right to an article. I strongly agree with Jehochman about this, let's encourage good behaviour so over time we get more of it, and this user's behaviour is far better than most SPAs... ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several vandals going after the Cro-Magnon article this afternoon, from different IP addresses. Seems like a coordinated attack -- a group of kids having a good time. Would be great if it could be semiprotected. I don't have time to watch over the article. Thanks! TimidGuy 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - main culprit now blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article is protected so that it can only be edited by admins, the template {{editprotected}} signals a request for an edit to be made. I made such a request at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Attribution, and my request is extremely simple: it requests that some editorial comments be attributed so as not to be confused with the views of the subject, as it says at WP:RS -- "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." However, two editors are resisting the attribution for what I believe can only be called POV reasons.

My question is this: can one admin simply say, sorry, no edit, and then remove the template? This was done by AuburnPilot [60]. Particularly when it has to do with a Wikipedia policy (and we might as well add BLP to the mix in this case,) I think that the template should remain so that other admins can have a look at it. --Masai warrior 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected due to four years of edit warring. Unless there's an uncontested formatting or linking error we should avoid making changes to it. In this case, you proposed a contentious change that had been the topic of lengthy discussion and edit warring. An uninvolved admin looked over the proposal and turned it down. This request is a case of forum shopping. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When commenting, Will, you ought to identify yourself as one of the two editors who is disputing the attribution, i.e., one of the edit warriors. The other one being Dking/Dennis King, who is citing himself (without attribution) and pushing his POV. --Masai warrior 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Will has been protecting Wikipedia from long-term abuse by LaRouche fanatics and antifanatics alike. Your contribution history has fewer than 100 mainspace contributions and is pretty much restricted to LaRouche subjects. Single purpose LaRouche accounts may be banned on sight. I have resolved this issue using the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there might be quite a backstory with User:Neutralizer. If there's anybody around who knows that story, could you take a quick look at User talk:Rayne870, and let me know whether I'm trying to help an innocent newbie who's caught in an autoblock and can't figure out their way out, or if my chain is being yanked? Thanks. --barneca (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be me. Neutralizer is a banned vandal fixated on smearing Michael Ignatieff and harassing me, User:Strothra and anyone else who gets in his way by trying to stop him vandalising the Michael Ignatieff article. Last year, under the agreement that we would not report him to his ISP for abuse, he agreed to stop evading his ban and go away quietly. In July, after Daniel and I were renamed, Neutralizer thought that we had actually left, and he decided that meant he could now return and he began editing the MI article again, leading to this AN complaint. I posted on the talk page that we were still here, only renamed and that he was still bound by the community ban, he seemed to disappear again. But he returned recently, using a European IP for a short while and when he was very quickly identified and the "but I can't Neutralizer, my IP is in Europe" defence didn't work, he resumed using his own ISP (Bell Sympatico). After using a variety of socks to troll AFD and DRV and recommencing his trolling, harassment and stalking, I reblocked the ranges that Essjay had previously identified and blocked as the Bell Sympatico IPs he has recently used all fell within the same ranges. It's hard to tell from those few edits on his talk page, but I don't think Rayne fellow is Neutralizer. If he is, though, he will be very easy to pick very quickly. I'll keep an eye on this fellow but I don't think you're being trolled there or having your chain yanked. There is an old SSP here but unfortunately it is very incomplete and out-of-date. Cheers, Sarah 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sarah. Looks like you've talked to them after I called it a night, and they're able to edit. --barneca (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked Politics rule for a week for abusive sockpuppetry. He opposed Hdt83's RfA at 15.21, 29 October 2007, shortly followed by Hi264 [61] - and now they are caught in the same autoblock. Seems clear cut to me.... Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And after being caught out, he's just left [62] which makes it even more clear. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User block was changed to indefinite by John Reaves for the same reason. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:55, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

So MSJapan was on the right track in suspecting disruption at his RfA after all. Too bad it didn't get caught sooner. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it my block of Hi264 that set up the autoblock? I had a feeling something weird would happen if I made that block... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was actually. I'm just a little shocked that Politics rules was silly enough to actually post the autoblock unblock request. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "shoot on sight" comment added by User talk:76.215.211.136, is there a way of tracking this IP to see if it maps to a named-user account? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that CheckUser or something? --wj32 ^t/c 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU Mercury 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But to be honest I don't think that is concerning enough to warrant a RFCU. (if he continues, just ask for the IP to be hardblocked since it doesn't seem to be shared) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue not resolved the Issue still stands that ONIH is stalking me and the evidence is based upon the inapropriate place at which a supposed IP that I use was placed. It was placed on the British national party talk page. In a section I had not edited and the talk page which I had not edited for some time. I would like some action taken to remove this harassing and abusive stalker from me. The section can be found here [63].--Lucy-marie 12:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted an advisory about the article Shane Ruttle Martinez on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. User:UnionPride who, along with User:Frank Pais and User:SuperVideoGameKid "own" the article vandalized my entry int he following manner [64] by rewriting my post so that it was about a completely different article! These three users have been working in tandem to revert any changes to the article Shane Ruttle Martinez even though the article is filled with vanity phrases and unsourced or poorly sourced claims. UnionPride has also attacked me by accusing me of being a "fascist" because I've edited his article. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez. Cheap Laffs 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone monitor the person who put the "inappropriate" message at the bottom of the above today? Jackiespeel 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Main page gets a lot of vandalism - could you provide a diff or a username/IP so we know who specifically? Mr.Z-man 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops...I forgot to come back and leave a note. I'm assuming he was talking about this edit by Jheckman51 (talk · contribs). I removed the section and left a vandal1 template on his page. Don't think there's anything here that requires more special treatment of any kind. --Onorem♠Dil 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given a little stronger warning for that, but I agree, nothing out of the ordinary has to be done. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Two months ago, I left Wikipedia. I have not returned (and I have no intention to). I am merely opening this discussion to try and get things in the air.

I decided to see whether the time was right by experimenting with a new account, User:JohnEMcClure. Before this, I reread WP:SOCK, and I'm quite sure I didn't violate anything. I didn't edit any articles that I did before. As to what happened, you can see. I did, with some deliberation, try and see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary (but I didn't do anything I deemed as a personal attack, as commenting on actions are different from commenting on people). I would request a larger-scale review of what happened, as I feel it reveals some serious problems with how we deal with these things. Perhaps some of you disagree, and I would be interested to see what people think. --Eyrian 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to permit the account to be unblocked, under the condition that you refrain from edits such as this? Although I originally declined your unblock request, I do believe in second chances and I'd be willing to let you have one, through the JohnEMcClure account, or a fresh one. Anthøny 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself. I was making a determination if I would be any happier if I returned; it's clear I wouldn't be.

The issue I feel is significant is that the actions taken regarding the block were, to me, inappropriate, and that it's a problem that needs to be looked at. --Eyrian 09:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you'd be well-counselled not to unblock your own alternate account. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable showed that it was unwise. Daniel 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. But that's really very immaterial; why would I want the account unblocked? It simply doesn't matter to me. --Eyrian 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

Maybe I interpreted "I'm not really concerned whether the account was blocked or not; if I wanted to do so, I could do it myself." wrongly. Daniel 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I may not have been clear. The account was designed to be entirely disposable, I have no investment in it whatsoever. Its block status is immaterial. --Eyrian 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what should be discussed here is whether what happened was justified. Anthony has stated that he'd be willing to unblock the other account now. Why? What has changed? The status of the account doesn't matter to me, but what happened to determine that status does. --Eyrian 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see that this is the correct venue, although I am at a loss to determine which is (Jimbo's talkpage has become deprecated recently), for this meta discussion regarding the communities response to sockpuppets. The matter which might have required admin attention - the tagging of User:JohnEMcLure as a sockpuppet of a banned user (which one has not been indicated) - is either resolved or disregarded. Perhaps Eyrian/JohnEMcClure open an RfC (with input from Anthøny?) to discuss this - interaction with WP might be limited to that one venue. As I said, I don't see any need for admin intervention here. LessHeard vanU 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This was my natural choice for a forum to consider a block, though I suppose I didn't count the fact that it was moot too heavily. I don't know if I want to stick around long enough to go through an RfC. I really just wanted to get the issue on the table, and in sight of the right people, and this seemed like a decent way to do that. --Eyrian 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

For clarification, because simply reviewing the talk page doesn't make it clear, according to the the block log, Durova blocked JohnEMcClure for being a sock of JB196, not for the content disputes necessarily. I have no feeling whether the block was right or wrong at this point, because I am not sure what evidence the sock allegation was made on. Into The Fray ^T/C 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for Durova for the truth, but it seems that the probable beginning was this edit. --Eyrian 10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm...if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary..runs along the lines of Creative_trolling I'd think. Eyrian, you continue on your way with your interpretation seemingly of anything later than 1910(?) being trivia and deletable. For some reason you decide to continue incognito (?) and have run into the same trouble. Trouble is where you draw the line in the sand is way past loads of people (which is fine), but you continue to be disruptive about it (which is not), and patronising and antagonistic edit summaries don't help either. You might enjoy yourself more if you did something more creative than working on wiki-pruning so much. C'mon, get an article up to GA or FA even, I'll even help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw what looked like distinctive JB196 methodology. If this is a different disruptive user then I've no objection to renaming the reason for blocking. Go ahead and request a checkuser. Durova^Charge! 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to which line he thinks he's testing. The line drawn between real In Pop Culture sections and trivia lists? The line between good sock and bad? It may sound stupid, but I looked at his contribs, and since most mainspace edits removed things like 'Yohgurt in Pop culture', which consisted of a single scene from the Simpsons, I don't see him crossing any particular lines in that regard, and if he really tried to find the tipping point for good sock bad sock, well it's not like that couldn't use some clarifications, we've had a few of those sort of sections here before. ThuranX 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence would be a worthwhile read. I'm also willing to discuss this offsite with any editor in good standing. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

this is one example, though an article which needs cleanup - there is alot of literature etc. written about the subject. Much of what he has deleted is extremely trivial, but he has some very strong views which at the other end are only shared by a few and quite arbitrary and is prepared to really push the point at times. To be fair alot of messy articles that survived deletion were improved but the whole saga was the most unpleasant I've been involved with in my time here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The alternate account also posted in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with some of the history. But from what I can tell an admin with an apparent history of contentious edits disappears for two months then upon return creates a fake account as a disposable "experiment" to see what happens if he provokes people by taking things "over the line." The first edit this new account does is take up the WP:POINT work of a contentious editor accused of being the proxy of one of Wikipedia's most notorious sockpuppeteers ever, who has just triggered a massive ArbCom case involving a couple dozen Wikipedians. He then votes to delete an article in a contested AFD. The admin then uses the fake account to commit incivilities, accuse me of stalking him, make vague predictions of prevailing and edit warring against me (which, given that it was actually an admin in disguise, is rather ominous), and deny that it's a sock puppet.

I will hold my tongue here until and unless I learn all the facts. Given that he has hidden the truth and only admitted things once people caught on, how can one be sure one knows everything? The only question is how one interprets it. At best this is strange conduct for an administrator - copy-catting an editor who just caused an arbcom case seems misguided. Administrators are supposed to carry mops and brooms, not carry out elaborate ruses to test the community's response to provocation. At worst it violates fundamental behavior policies.

It seems reasonable to investigate whether Eyrian has sockpuppeted elsewhere, or is a sockpuppet, or is somehow connected with Alkivar, Burntsauce, and/or JB196. A block while we sort it out might make some sense. He claims he has no intention of returning to Wikipedia anyway so surely he won't be inconvenienced. Depending on what we find, some of these accounts may be logical parties to Alkivar's ArbCom case or a new arbitration request, or are simply blockable. You can obviously form up your own opinion and decide what to do. Just letting you know from the peanut gallery as one who is affected when administrative matters get out of hand, this is beyond odd, it's creepy. - Wikidemo 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A desysopping should be considered at this point, at least. Neil ☎ 10:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Breaching experiments are a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...when you spell it out like that Wikidemo it does indeed get murkier. OK, what now? I was unaware of the other issue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a RFCU should be made as we have an account which it admits to have a sock that is acting peculiarly? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. But I'm not sure that is the best venue for a desysopping to be considered. Nor am I certain that one is required. What is the best venue? GRBerry 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'm pretty certain he posted under the IP 68.163.65.119, attempting to blank an articvle where his afd had failed and making several other contensious edits before eventually flaming out again. Artw 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...[65] a fairly busy IP for a while wasn't it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally here was an RfC which didn't go ahead just to give some history. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, only admins will be able to view deleted material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. User:Eyrian left Wikipedia again, deleting (and possibly salting?) various of his and User:JohnEMcClure's pages on his way out here (which he did last time too). Can we just take his word that he's gone and indefinitely block him and his IP? If he ever wants to return we can deal with it then; just no nasty surprises like this one. Also, he probably should return as a non-admin, which can be a condition to unblocking. Yet, something doesn't add up. An admin leaves two months ago abruptly and under a cloud, comes back to conduct a sockpuppet "experiment" to see if the time is right for returning, reveals himself only when exposed, takes up random miscellaneous work as if he never left ([66] [67]), then leaves again in less than a day. Is he still with us or will he return on some other account(s)? Given the suspicious connection with the Alkivar/Burntsauce case, the mention of at least one other sockpuppet, and the possible relation to JB196, is there any possible way to investigate whether he is connected to Alkivar/Burntsauce (and therefore belongs in that case), or other as-yet unknown sockpuppets and meatpuppets? Wikidemo 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Me n Eyrian don't have one another on our best friends lists, so I'll avoid getting too involved here, but I think it's reasonable to say that if Eyrian were to reapply for adminship it wouldn't be likely to pass (for better or for worse). I would just give the account regular editor status for now and maybe put a "user believed to have left" tag on his user page to avoid confusion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Although they are new users, Eddymania7 (talk · contribs) and Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs) look to be only here to see how big they can make their guestbook, they seem to know eachother, and I assume one has told the other about Wikipedia, and how fun it is. While using guestbooks is not against the rules here at Wikipedia, I believe it should be if the user is only using Wikipedia to make their signature book as big as possible. I have a signature book available for anyone to sign, yet I still edit mainspace. What are people's views on this, and what would be the appropriate action to take? I gave one of the users a self made note/warning [68], and would like others views on this. Thanks, — jacĸrм (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT clearly says that Wikipedia is not for the purposes that these two editors have been pursuing. This is policy. I am familiar with Eddymania7, as I've had to revert a number of "vandal"/test edits. I almost blocked the account as a vandalonly account, but his edits did not seem malicious, just misguided. If the editors are here to contribute, then it is not so much an issue. But if their only edits are for socializing, then there are a lot of other free resources for this purpose. — ERcheck (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Both users have also removed my notices I left them about not using Wikipedia for these purposes. This leads me to believe they have not read them.. — jacĸrм (talk)

I suspect it means they read them but don't care. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, but I'm not aware of an actual warning for using Wikipedia in this way. — j</fo{{nt>acĸrм (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for {{uw-socialnetwork}}. east.718 at 22:00, 10/28/2007

No, I know that exists, but it isn't a warning which can be extended upon, such as vandalism: level 1,2,3,4 etc. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If these users continue like this, they will be blocked, as they are not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Typically this means disruptive users. A total lack of contributions also counts as "not contributing constructively". --Deskana (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to good, old-fashioned personal messages rather than templates? violet/riga (t) 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if they don't stop, block indef. Jbeach ^sup 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, it is possible that we have a case of sockpuppetry. User:Eddymania7 created User:Tony Spencer Hawk's (TSH) talk page here[69]. Then he requested that the page not be deleted, signing it and then unsigning it.[70]. Then TSH signed the same note.[71]. Both have a pattern of deleting talk page messages and have signing user talk pages and getting signatures as their main activities. Blocking is not an unreasonable step if they continue to use Wikipedia as a social site. — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the big harm? The user has been on wikipedia only 1 day. It takes time to think of good editorial contributions. Some user have tons of AFD but few mainspace edits. Even their signature page is short. In fact, I'm going to go there and make some suggestions for them to edit, so let's not block now! WP6 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Collecting signatures is not productive but it's not harmful either. Leave them alone unless they start getting in the way of productive users. --bainer (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope they become productive editors. "What's the harm?" It's not a matter of having signature pages, the main issue is the use of Wikipedia solely for the purpose of socializing — which is addressed in in the WP:NOT policy. A welcome message, which included helpful links, as well as other suggestions on productivity were added to Eddymania7's talk page — which he deleted. Perhaps the recent, currently undeleted, suggestions will be read and taken to heart. "Preaching to the choir" — we are here to build an encyclopedia. — ERcheck (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs) isnt it a misleading user name considering Tony Hawk has a son called Spencer. Gnangarra 04:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the account needs to be posted at WP:UAA is the least of the problems here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Another — User:Planet Gran — is a new editor, appearing about the same time, with the same edit pattern. Identified himself as "Eddy"[72]. On the "Tony Hawk" name, I agree it is misleading. With the "Spencer" middle name, it might just be a fan... however, although not the exact given name of the famous Tony Hawk, it gives that appearance. — ERcheck (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I just found this.[73] — User:Tony Spencer Hawk is saying he is "Tony Hawk" and his son's name is Spencer. So, we either have the famous "Tony Hawk" or an imposter. — ERcheck (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the following accounts.

• Tony Spencer Hawk (talk · contribs)
• Planet Gran (talk · contribs)
• Phillip John Fry (talk · contribs)
• Eddymania7 (talk · contribs)
• Psyche 42 Dude (talk · contribs)

All of these accounts were operated by the same person, and as such its clear that they were never here to be used to constructively contribute. --Deskana (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskana, I'll keep my eye out for more, and alert you of them asap. — jacĸrм (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He is not the real Tony Hawk. Trust me. I have some of his "fan" mail. The following cites are as shows: [74], [75], and it's obviously that they are all socks because one of the usernames, (I believe it's Phillip John Fry) somehow knew my usernames. Tony Spencer Hawk never really did contribute to his own profile, so, I should have reported him in the first place. But, I chose not to because I thought he was really the real Tony Hawk. So there you have it. -Goodshoped 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And he does have a son named Spencer. Either he got something against Tony Hawk or obsessed with him or something. Either way. -Goodshoped 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'll look for them, too, despite the fact that I'm not a sysop. -Goodshoped 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I just found this. I don't believe that the Tony Hawk is a Tony Alva fan. I doubt it. -Goodshoped 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The lesson is clear: if you don't sign the chipoll, you hate kittens, and puppies, and bunnies, and et cetera! El_C 10:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User is continuing to add messages to his talk page. He seems to be trying to use someone saying "You really tony hawk? You trippin?" as an excuse for his actions. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

rhetoric page

Resolved

 – User informed of useful links, vandalism reverted --Haemo 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this--sorry but I'm new to this. I was reading the page titled "rhetoric" and I saw that one of the paragraph headings is called "i love him, suck it", which doesn't seem to belong there! Also, the first sentence of that paragraph begins with an exclamation mark and seems to be missing some information, as the sentence doesn't make sense. This is what it says: "! as the medium through which political and judicial decisions were made, and through which philosophical ideas were developed and disseminated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmetimesthree (talk • contribs) 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple vandalism. Reverted. IrishGuy ^talk 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find out how to deal with vandalism here: Wikipedia:Vandalism. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

202.1.164.254 (talk)

Resolved

 – User warned, trolling ceased. --Haemo 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for this user to be banned or some action to be taken. He/ she has not only used offensive language against me but has prior acts of vandalism, which can be seen on his/ her talk page. He/ she left this comment for me on Talk:Bestial Warlust:

"What a sad fuck, do you really check your little claims to fame to make sure that they're still there every day? Piss poor article, I'm hoping that it's by a 15 year old kid, otherwise everyone should be embarrassed. Article should nominated for deletion again, or better yet, I think that I'll rewrite it myself sometime. DSO."

I would appreciate swift justice.Navnløs 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would seem the IP who left that comment was actually 202.1.168.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not 202.1.164.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user shows some definite trollish tendencies, but I don't think s/he qualifies for a block, at least not yet. I'll leave a warning against personal attacks on the IP's userpage, and if the problem behavior continues, then a better decision can be made as to whether or not a block should be issued. I've left a 4im-level warning, as this seems to be the user's primary mode of communicating even useful things on Talk pages, and that kind of bullshit should be nipped in the bud. A second opinion is welcome. [EDIT:] The two IPs seem to be the same person in the Solomon Islands; the first is his or her current IP, the second seems to no longer be assigned to the user. --Dynaflow babble 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Run of the mill trolling from the looks of it. They've been warned. If it continues, report it to WP:AIV. Otherwise, just ignore the individual.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your decisive and quick actions. If it continues I will speak with one of you again. Navnløs 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Publishing of IP address and possible stalking.

Resolved

 – Generic rouge admin abuse, user was caught bang to rights. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I am here to report One Nighht In Hackney. This is a serious issue as the IP address used by myslef has been publishe don a talk page. This is what I cponsider stalking as the user just seems to like to have a dig and cause undue stress to myself. I have not in the instance provoked the user in anyway. Pl;ease could something be done as the publishing of an IP address of a user is serious in my opinion.The comments can be sen near the bottom [76].--Lucy-marie 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not much to see here, except me pointing out the abusive sockpuppetry by Lucy-marie on discussions on the page in question, something she has been recently blocked for. I was asked here to see if there were any more socks in her drawer, so the stalking claim is without merit. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its your own fault if you log out to edit and pretend its not you, then someone puts two and two together and gets four, Lucy. --Deskana (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer the issue this is a form of stalking. It is not that the user puiblished the IP address it is where the user published the address. If you read where it is published then it is highly inapropriate. just take a look at where it is published.[77]--Lucy-marie 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page which you logged out to try to influence? Like I said, if you choose to log out to edit abusively, then this will happen. --Deskana (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you now accusing me of malitiously editing a page? I have not edited that page for a long time the last edit I made was in the meditaion section. The publishing of the IP address in a completly unrelated section of the talk page is inapropriate and unecessary and is in my opinion a form of stalking. If i had continuosly edited using just an IP which I do not use and deny using an IP to edit on that page. It would be justified but this is just a way of the user scoring points because they have nothing better to do. Also could you please pass an interpritation on the Talk:The Cool Wall talk page. --Lucy-marie 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs aren't secret. If you use yours to try to avoid taking responsibility for your contributions, this will happen. Maybe you should take full responsibility for your edits in the future. It isn't stalking for users to object to your presenting yourself as two people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the evidence, by the way, from ONIH's talk. All circumstantial, but good enough for a working hypothesis and certainly good enough to see of any claim of abuse.

similar arguments on the BNP talk page, such as this, this, this, this and this. The IPs limited contributions also overlap with Lucy-marie on various articles as well - Lancing College, Template:G8 nations‎, Rounders, Declaration and forfeiture, Eurozone, Murder of Amanda Dowler - can you hear quacking? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Those edits aren't mine and a check user on my current IP will confirm that.--Lucy-marie 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, while it's not your current IP, it obviously was your IP at the time of those contributions. You do have a distressing habit of logging out to say things you don't want to have definitively linked to you. Kindly cease. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)