Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 17 December 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Misplaced Pages since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - user has been disruptive since day 1. Has refused to accept that sources are valid, has disrupted both here and off-wiki, and as an interesting data point claimed off-wiki that he works for Mr O'Reilly. Yes, off-wiki belongs off-wiki for the most part, but admitting to that level of COI is worth noting. // roux   17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Ignoring his politics, his behavior to this point has been unacceptable. He should be banned from editing all articles related to American politics or political or editorial figures, broadly contrued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Our patience with single-issue crusaders who refuse to accept consensus should eventually run out. We should welcome their participation if they will join in reasonable discussion, but I think he has used that up that chance already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  Consensus is not set in stone, and if it's in conflict with policy - the consensus of the community - then local consensus must give. Projecting your personal frustration with their numbers onto a single user doesn't seem fair, btw. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• An alternative suggestion How about encouraging Fru23 to actually edit the articles in question, adding appropriate criticism based on reliable sources? So far all his activities seems to be on the talk pages. This low level of activity would not seem to be enough to justify a topic ban on all American politics. Fred Talk 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Investigation of the matter, using the checkuser tool, reveals that Fru23 is one of a family of socks who habitually make tendentious edits from a point of view similar to that of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly regarding controversial contemporary political issues. The edits are made by accounts from two ips not used by legitimate editors 151.188.105.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 72.192.216.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My recommendation is to indefinitely block those ips and the accounts Fru23, KingsOfHearts, and Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • • Continuing to study him as at this discussion. Fred Talk 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you didn't look far enough. His two blocks were due to his form of "editing", which was to delete stuff he didn't agree with, against consensus. Baseball Bugs 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I prefer a regular block for disruptive editing, all he did was disrupt these pages since he started editing a month ago and no other contributions. It's clear he's not wanted here. I'll do the block if there are no objections. Secret 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • • Obviously I object, but would be quite willing to block if he is actually unable or unwilling to edit responsibly. Fred Talk 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • A topic ban would effectively be an overall wikipedia ban, since this is apparently the only topic he's interested in. A week-long block might send the proper message, then see if he changes his approach, or if he simply abandons wikipedia, as belligerent users sometimes do. Baseball Bugs 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor certainly has a point of view of his own, as do most editors. His is apparently quite different from mine, but that is not grounds for a ban. He has committed some excesses editing in support of that point of view, and has had a 24 hour and a 72 hour block as a result. He has not been a mere vandal or troll, and his stated opposition to "POV pushing" on Nov 12 on his user page is in accord with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, despite seeming POV pushing in some of his edits. Rather than a ban against editing some overly broad unlisted set of topics, I suggest that the next block, should it be necessary, be extended to 1 week, as part of progressive discipline. Maybe he will figure out that collaborative editing is the way we do things here rather than unilateral actions, and will learn to edit collaboratively and productively with less drama. Sometimes it takes a person a while to figure out that this is an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, what he said was "I HATE POV PUSHERS", not "POV pushing". He regards US as POV-pushers. In short, he hates US. Nothing personal, of course. Baseball Bugs 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• No comment Fru23 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not going to work. We'll have to see decent editing and talk page discussion. You say there is a "double standard", give some examples. Fred Talk 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    Media matters on Bill OReilly and newsbusters on al franken/Olberman, when I proposed the use of newsbuster as a source on the those articles it was shot down for the same reasons I stated on bills article for the removal of mediamatters. WP:own wp:tagteamFru23 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I was on the fence on this one, but Fru23's comment above seems to validate everyone's concerns about him and his ability to edit constructively. Dayewalker (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per "no comment". Clearly he's disrupting to make a point and doesn't want to edit constructively. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Fred Bauder. Insufficient demonstration of disruption to merit a topic ban, although one might be down the road if current tendencies continue. Two short blocks and one rejected AFD are a bit lightweight as grounds for topic banning. Durova 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Switching to neutral per sock evidence. Durova 01:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Support at minimum, per checkuser. Durova 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Ramsquire and Baseball bugs canvased in the afd. Stop accusing me of attacking others editors unless you are willing to provide a link to the incident. Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors.Fru23 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop accusing other editors of canvassing unless you are willing to provide links to the incidents. // roux   22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ramsquire#O.27Reilly_and_Fru23 Plus Ramsquire told 1 or 2 as well. Fru23 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

      • Uh, that's not canvassing. Letting a user who was involved in a particular situation know that the situation has re-started is not canvassing. Please (re)read WP:CANVASS. // roux   23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

        • Thanks for explaining that. I told Arzel, Jimintheatl, and Noian, because we have been in extensive discussion about that article. Also please note that Arzel and Jim are usually on completely opposite sides of most issues, so it's clear I was not trying to influence the result per WP:CANVASS. Ramsquire 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

          • Likewise, I was notifying 3 users who had been in discussion with Fru23 recently and I feared he was trying to slip something past them. I'll admit my wording was a little chippy. I consulted with an admin on the accusation of canvassing, and he basically laughed about it. Baseball Bugs 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  Why is IP 72.192.216.42 making a comment , then the same comment being immediately after signed by Fru23? This is the infamous "poor man's check user" which happens when you get logged out. The edit history of 72.192.216.42 , now apparently revealed to be Fru23, gives new dimensions to this proposal. Edison (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That IP address 72.192.216.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does indeed afford a broader look at Fru23's approach to things here. WHOIS says Atlanta, GA, which puts it in the realm of the banned User:Tecmobowl, although I think that's a coincidence. Baseball Bugs 22:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "He is not wanted here" is no valid reason for a topic ban. It is rather a sign that something is amiss with the motivation of the users that don't want him. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That's not the reason. Continued disruption and WP:POINTy edits are the issue. // roux   22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  It is a dynamic IP, it is the main reason I created this account, I said this when I first started editing. I am not responsible for any edits made before nov 16, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Criticism_of_Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Possible_COI.3F unless you want to ban me for something I have no control over, don't use that against me. Fru23 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Make that Nov 11 which was his first edit under Fru23 and was to the O'Reilly criticism article. Baseball Bugs 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • A defiant tone is unlikely to earn the community's trust, though. Per WP:BAN it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters in this discussion. So would you be willing to agree that perhaps you could become more familiar with site standards and work toward a more collaborative approach? Durova 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• What Fred said. This user needs a mentor not a topic ban, at least to start with. Patient explanation of policy may fix the problem. And if it doesn't, well, we can fix that when it becomes apparent. Let's have a volunteer to convey some WP:BLP clue. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because I am clearly a vandal that GOES LOLOLOLLULZ LULZ, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Supershit_666&diff=prev&oldid=228204437 Fru23 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification I never meant to imply a request for a permanent topic ban. I was thinking a temporary topic ban may allow Fru the opportunity to get a better idea of how to work collaboratively, while working on articles he is not as emotionally involved in. My major problem with him, is his refusal to actually discuss what is bothering him specifically. He makes claims that "the source does not exist" when it does, or "the source does not say that" when a quick review makes it obvious he did not read the source. In sum, I do not support a permanent ban of any kind against Fru yet. However, I do think he should show some ability to work here in other articles to stop his disruption on the more contentious articles. I apologize for not being as clear in my initial request. Ramsquire 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• • BOLP Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors. I know a lot about the rules of wikiepdia bolp,coatrack, and npov. I admit that part of my recent contributions to the TALK Pages of olberman and Al my have been to make a WP:POINT. Fru23 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I once heard of an ocean liner that was so large it ran aground on two different beaches at the same time. It was double stranded. Baseball Bugs 00:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - I personally see absolutely no constructive contributions from this editor, and only seems like he's here to service an agenda and disrupt Misplaced Pages in the process. I would endorse putting all of his editing privileges on probation pending constructive contribution elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have no interest in knowing, or debating, anyone's personal political beliefs. This is not why we are here, and simple decorum demands we leave such topics out of Misplaced Pages. However, when a user makes edits in such a manner that there political views become not only obvious but problematic, then some action has to be taken. Fru23 does not seem to understand why we are here, and shows no sign of wanting to improve as an editor. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

• OK, so at the risk of turning this into WP:SSP:
  • We've established (and he's admitted) that 72.192.216.42 was Fru23 at one time.
  • Looking at Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42, we see this "dynamic" IP's second edit, in July, was to Cesar Millan. It was a revert to a previous version by....
  • Special:Contributions/KingsOfHearts. Looking at the edit summaries of KingsOfHearts' September edits, it's clear that all the "LOL your sources suck" edits from the IP this summer and early fall were the same person as KingsOfHearts.
  • Looking at the articles KingsOfHearts has edited, we see that there's an amazing overlap with...
  • Special:Contributions/Fru23.
  • Quack.

I think the only question now is, are Fru23 and KingsOfHearts the same POV pushing vandal who should be indef blocked, or are they friends who have been socking on Bill O'Reilly and other conservative articles, and should be blocked? Luckily, per WP:SOCK, it really doesn't matter. Don't subject ban, Block indef.. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's impressive detective work. It does seem like we have sock/meat puppetry going on here, and that would call for a block. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As Gordon Ramsay would say: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear." Permablock, yes. // roux   01:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Check your facts, KingsofHearts has been editing for a year, longer than the ip which supports my claim that it is dynamic, I started editing on the ip but stopped after noticing its past contributions some which were on BILL OREILLY which is why I went there in the first place, I said all of this about a month ago. Barneca, do some research on my past edits before accusing me of conservative pov pushing so you won't look like such a .

So far I have edited the follow articles.

• Criticism of bill oreilly Removing contentious nonnotable material
• Michael Moore controversies Removing contentious nonnotable material sourced by only newsbusters or national review
• Media Matters for America Removing Quotations from every other word in a section
• Osama Bin Laden Removing terrorist accusations from the opening turned into a big argument that I avoided, in the end my edit stayed in place.
• Fred Phelps Removing a list of God hates slogans from the opening.
• Todd Davis Removing his social security number from the page
• Life lock Removing Todd Davis social security number from the page
• Jersey girls Changing 9/11 terrorist attacks to 9/11 attacks
• Muhammad Rewording picture info on the page to say "an artist's depiction of Muhammad doing something" instead of just say Muhammad doing something.

The only edits of mine that could be even remotely seen as conservative pov pushing is some to Bills. If anything most of my edits seem to be pushing a progressive/liberal agenda. Fru23 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After Looking through again I have not edited ANY page that kingofhearts has edited. Croctotheface stop praising him for this and what would I be blocked for? Fru23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also recommend a comparison to Wikiport (talk · contribs), another short lived POV pusher who showed up to complain about sources on the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly articles (also note the reference to Olbermann). My guess? Fru23 is yet another sock of the same disruptive user who has been showing up on the FNC related talk pages for a very long time. The quacking is getting louder. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::: Fru23 should NOT be lblocked right off the bat. quite rnakly, the phony "checkuser" induction reaosning used above seems dody; while its certainly possible that Fru23 is the same person as the origial vandal, the fact of tha matter is that there is a possibility that his issues/conflicts are likely to be unrelated and thus we should assess Fru23 as Fru23 and not as twhoiever he might have been in another increasquitian. I recommend the WP:MENTOR option and iwouldnt mind taking on that role is no one else has the time/icnliantion. Smith Jones (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)I think I hear quacking as well--but just to eliminate any doubt, a Checkuser is in order. But in the meantime, endorse topic ban, pending acceptance of mentorship Blueboy96 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) (ecX3) i concur witht he above, asa reatlional conpromise. Again, a topic-ban temporary might be in order until i can hamer out a deal with Fru32 to manage contentiaos article editoring. Smith Jones (talk)

I just listed every page I have edited, NONE are the same as kingsofhearts, plus only one can be even remotely considered conservative, most are liberal. Please one of the people going OMG SOCK!!1! respond to this. Its is entirely possible that we at one point had the same ip that does not mean we are the same person. Even if we were that is not a warrant a ban or even a block, wikipedia has no rule against having more than 1 account http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Fru23 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23 is obviosuly not a sock, so lets dropt his line of ringworm snot right now please and ge back to the original content conflictSmith Jones (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"increasquitian" and "dropt his line of ringworm snot"--Smith Jones, WP would be a much less-cromulent place without you. (More comprehensible, perhaps, but definitely less-cromulent.) You should write poetry in your spare time. :) GJC 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I'm going treasure being accused of speaking "ringworm snot" for quite a while. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Let's go ahead with checkuser. Durova 01:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive ... Blueboy96 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboy, for picking up the ball and running with it. I'd planned to file a checkuser request after Fru23 denied it, but I was pulled away from the computer rather abruptly. I'll go there now to see if there's anything I can add. --barneca (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I mentioned my ip had past bad faith edits a month ago, it is why I said I made the account, anyway the Kingsofhearts has edited none of the pages I did.Fru23 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry to stir up contentiousness most assuredly IS against the rules, regardless of their physical proximity, and I remember very well at least one very contentious case where both of them were banned despite checkuser showing no relationship at all. One tidbit I find interesting is his edit on Muhammad, which seems off track from his usual editing. However, it is on my watchlist (which is up to 2,500 items now - yikes) and I had edited it recently, so he might have been looking at my recent edits and decided to make a small edit just to give the false appearance of some diversity. I could be wrong about that, though. However, it would be interesting to see if a checkuser tied these various guys together, or if its coincidental. A look at the history of Fru23, the IP, and KingsOfHearts does seem to bear out his argument that the common articles are only or primarily on the IP, not on the named users alone, indicating that they are sharing the IP somehow. The bizarre use of caps is fairly common to Kings and the IP, but rather less often for Fru23. It might also be interesting to put a hard block on that IP 72.192.216.42 and see what the fallout is, if any. Baseball Bugs 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They have the same passwords, they are indeed socks. Lobocf (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

"Lobocf" might be Serbian for "troll". Baseball Bugs 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that this diff and this one both use Fru23's idiosyncratic use of 'BOLP' instead of 'BLP', which I haven't ever seen used by anyone else. // roux   03:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • bolp = biography of living persons. its ia perfect valid annunciation of the term WP:BOLP that I personaly use every often day when relevent as it means the same thing and is actualy more clearly the n the more inaccurate WP:BLP which could mean anything since it has no palindromatic information attached to the link. Smith Jones (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Whether or not it's 'accurate' is a matter of opinion. The use of BOLP instead of BLP is, in my experience, completely idiosyncratic to Fru23. Also, you might want to look up palindrome. // roux   03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I wacknowldged you but the point i am trying to say that is WP:BOLP is an existing redirect, which eans that it must hav ebeen used by SOMEONE before fru23. while i admit its (unfortunately) rare but that doesnt mean that Fru23 is somekind of sockpuppet mastermind. lets wait for the checkuser to tell us who is a sockpoppet of whom and deal with the matter of Fru23s behavior pthus far irrespecitve of the nature of his alleged sockpuppets if there are any which whom I am in seriously doubt-mode. Smith Jones (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • I "wacknowledge" that it doesn't prove sockpuppetry. It's just a little piece in a puzzle. Checkuser would likely tell us for sure, one way or the other. But that oddity jumped out at me when I was looking at Fru23's contrib list. Similarities in style are worth looking at when sockpuppetry is suspected, even though they may be coincidental. For what it's worth, the alternate WP:BOLP was created nearly 2 years ago: whose span on wikipedia was a grand total of 20 minutes, in which he (or it) created a number of variations on WP:BLP and other wikipedia abbreviations. Baseball Bugs 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

again, i agre wthat there is probalb ysomething fishiny about these two accounts, but to me tocontineu arguing here is to have WP:ANI usurp the role of WP:sSP THERE Is alwready a checkuser request underway re: this user and it makesmore sense to do the sockpuppet investigations via WP:SSP and dea l with the mentorship/conflict resolution/etc elsevhere. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that you need a new keyboard? New Monitor? My typing is often lysdexic, but I bow to the master. Edison (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what this is supposed to prove. Even if you decide to say I am a sock I have never crossed paths with kingofhearts, so I can't be blocked for that. See legitimate uses of sockpuppets. Fru23 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What a positive result would show is a history of seven recent blocks instead of only two. Durova 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Which may or may not be the reason he was trying to get at least one of his blocks deleted from the log: and Baseball Bugs 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(OT) I'm confused that User:KingsOfHearts even exists. Care to comment at WT:U#How confused do I have to be? Shenme (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out the remarkable coincidence that while others have mentioned that Fru claimed on IRC that he works for O'Reilly, KingOfHearts claims in this edit summary that he personally took this picture of O'Reilly during taping of the O'Reilly factor. Something he would obviously be in no position to do unless he (yes, you guessed it) works for O'Reilly. It's getting a little hard to hear in here, what with all the quacking. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A Foxy sock drawer

Checkuser on Fru23 returns not only KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but a few others including Xrxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See this edit. Fred Talk 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

distinctive edit by KingsOfHearts Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Similar edit by 72.192.216.42. Fred Talk 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This family of editors, particularly Fru23, KingsOfHearts and the ip, use the same half dozen identically configured computers, as one might find in an office. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Welly welly welly welly welly welly well! A real-life version of Fox in Socks. Baseball Bugs 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They also edited from a second ip which has been blocked for 6 months as a "schoolblock". Fred Talk 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here an edit from the ip reverts to the version favored by Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you list all the socks at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts? Time to close this on-wiki puppet show. Blueboy96 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23, KingsOfHEarts and Xrxty all blocked indef, while 72.192.216.42 has been blocked 48 hours. This show is over. Blueboy96 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There. Not a single grain of evidence of abuse, but who cares. Opposition to the prevailing pov must be removed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Around 10 blocks for disruption. Several grains' worth there. Baseball Bugs 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought

I've been trying to come up with a term to describe what seems to be an increasing phenomenon - a user who brings a complaint here only to end up getting blocked himself once others investigate. Sometimes they make a simple mistake, such as inadvertently tipping off editors, as with Fru23 managing to tie himself up with that IP, which opened the lid on the case. Other times they simply don't see the forest for the trees. At the risk of falling into the "recentism" trap, I'm thinking a good term would be "Plaxicoed". Baseball Bugs 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Happens all the time, Bugs. Ever since I first became a sysop I've noticed it. That's a typical arc for disruptive users. Probably better not to name it after a particular person, because if the matter becomes too personal for them they're apt to stick around and become an even bigger problem. See User_talk:BooyakaDell#Sockpuppet, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of JB196, and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of JB196. Durova 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Another thought is the Homer Simpson response to when he messes up: "D'oh!" In The Hunt for Red October, the enemy ship managed to torpedo itself. Maybe "wikipedo". Or "wikipe-D'oh!"

Hey, by the way, we now know what the deal is with those guys, as they "retired" within 4 minutes of each other: and They're brothers! Shazam! This is a twist on the usual "my evil twin brother did it", the dilemma being it's hard to figure out which one was the evil twin. Ironically, KingsOfHearts' talk page initially said, "I will try my best to help wikipedia. Any suggestions?" Today, he helped wikipedia.

That still leaves Xrxty. That must be the "evil cousin" who's out of town. Baseball Bugs 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One semi-serious question: KingsOfHearts had uploaded a photo of O'Reilly that he took on-set. Would it be presumptuous to license-tag it as PD-self, since he says he took the photo only he didn't seem to get that it needs to say PD-self? Baseball Bugs 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can be presumed he meant PD-self, but the question above suggests a possibility that it's not- if FRU did once work for O'Reilly and he took the picture in the line of work, the image might well be a work product, and thus ownership would go to O'Reilly's production company. On the other hand, if KOH wasn't an employee, and just happened to be on the set with a camera, it's a different story. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I had best leave it alone, then. I see that Blaxthos has un-deleted the two talk pages, since the "retired" stuff is a lie - it's kind of like Larry Miller's pub-crawl joke, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." So the next question is, where does one request page protection? I know there's a page for that somewhere, but I've never used it. Baseball Bugs 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

==>WP:RFPP Deor (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Blaxthos, in fact, already has it covered. Baseball Bugs 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

However, this is evidence you are simply reverting to old habits. This edit that you made does not accord with the content of the source cited. Why don't you quit making edits like that for a while and maybe we can address the questions you raise. There is a serious question as to whether blogs are appropriate sources. Fred Talk 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold the phone

Here's a brand new redlink jumping straight into this debate. Imagine that. Baseball Bugs 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Criminy... —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but everything's OK, he says he's not a sock of Fru23. He just happened to jump into this debate, as a brand new user. Must be a miracle of some kind or other. P.S. I posted a note on the checkuser's page. Baseball Bugs 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an attempt to make a WP:POINT about AGF, considering this comment. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reported the above user, who is obviously a sock and promises to continue his predecessors' disruption, to the checkuser and also to AIV. Baseball Bugs 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, though honestly I don't think AIV will do anything as this sort of gaming/socking doesn't really qualify as vandalism (see here). Also, I wonder what the CU will turn up, considering both IPs that they're known to have used in the original CU case were blocked at the time of account creation. I wouldn't rule out going over to a coffee shop or some such, but I doubt a CU would be able to determine anything from this. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Quoth the ravenduck: neverquackermore. "I am not a sock of X" is kind of proof of being a sock of X, all other things taken into consideration. // roux   20:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured posting to AIV wouldn't hurt, especially in light of his threat to continue his predecessors' disruption. BlueBoy is preparing another CU case. Baseball Bugs 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, the user doesn't seem to be trying at all to hide his tracks, so it should be very easy to spot future puppets. I actually didn't realize this had gone this far up until stumbling upon this page earlier today. It's really quite something. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets often assume the collective editorship here is as stupid naive as they turn out to be. Baseball Bugs 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, would you consider a refactor there? I know this is frustrating but it's better to take the high road. Durova 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I do not understand what flawed logic you are using. I am neither disruptive or a sock. JcLiner (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are actually a legitimate sock, prove it. Contact someone on Arbcom and tell them in strict confidence who you really are--with proof, naturally. They can then convey that you are indeed the legitimate alternate of another account. Or just wait for the CU request to be processed. I don't think anyone here is in any doubt of what those results will be. // roux   21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's been filed. I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block based on behavioral evidence. I don't think we need to wait for the checkuser results. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please block me now so if the results come back negitive you will look like an idiot. I expect an apoligy and for everyone to remove all acusations against me when this is disproven. JcLiner (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results came back as "possible." Similarities noted by Fred, coupled with JcLiner's behavior, were enough for me to indefblock. (sigh) I have a feeling we're going to end up playing whack-a-mole with this one for awhile. Blueboy96 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he owes you the "apoligy". Baseball Bugs 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He has graciously supplied us with his current IP 64.72.89.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is now in the wikilawyering stage. Baseball Bugs 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys are so obvious. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, so was Mr. Fox 'n Socks. Baseball Bugs 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the IP an extra day off (for a block of two days) and disabled user talk page editing. If he wants to contest the block, he can use one of his accounts. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've invited him to email me and given directions for how to do so. Durova 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The banned User:Tecmobowl also tried to get the checkuser to tell him how he identified him when he used socks. As if. Fred gives a hint of it though - it seems like the PC itself can be identified through some kind of signature, the technology of which is beyond me. It's kind of scary from the Big Brother standpoint, but it's also necessary in the hit-and-run world of the internet. Baseball Bugs 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's most likely from information that your web browser transmits to a server whenever you make a connection to it. Unless you're crazy and do certain strange things with your web browser it wouldn't ever be personally identifiable on its own, though it could be used to rule out a relationship if it were significantly different. From what I understand it was the behavioral correlations that sealed this case more than anything else. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Just as long as checkusers continue to snag the socks and launder them, that's the important thing. :) Baseball Bugs 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

JackyRT is indefblocked. Time for WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another country heard from

A red-link user whose very first edit comes to Fru23's defense. Right. Baseball Bugs 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough

It seems you are turning this into a witch hunt against anyone who does not agree with you and tries to point it out. Stop bulling other editors into supporting your pov. JackyRT (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have clumsily attempted to file another sock checkuser case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts Baseball Bugs 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not very imaginative- I wonder if a CU is even necessary, but it'd certainly be a nice icing on the cake. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just in case an admin doesn't block him first. I probably should have filed at SSP, but I'm not sure how to do it. Baseball Bugs 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin just indef-blocked him. Baseball Bugs 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, already done. WP:RBI. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another admin, User:Nishkid64, has confirmed 3 other Fox 'n Socks at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts, all of which were apparently "sleeper" accounts. I'm assuming they will get blocked in due time. Baseball Bugs 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And Wknight94 has wielded his wiki light-saber and dispatched them to the wiki phantom zone. That makes 4 RBI's for Wknight94 today, from this thread alone. Every time one of these socks makes his voice heard, 2 or 3 more of his socks get sent to the laundry. Do I detect a trend here? Wknight94 has indef-blocked them. Baseball Bugs 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you might be taking a wee bit too much delight in all this. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and I might just be encouraging him. Enough of this. Baseball Bugs 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was over

Now KingsOfHearts is claiming they are brothers...who happen to edit the same articles and sometimes accidentally use the same incorrect Misplaced Pages terminology? Since I was accused of bad adminship by Bstone for declining what I thought looked like a fairly obvious unblock request...I'll let some other folks look at it. --Smashville 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

KOH was claiming this when he was originally blocked. I'm not sure if it's a reasonable story to accept... and even if it's true, KOH can still potentially serve as FRU's meatpuppet. Furthermore, I question whether an unblock is in order considering KOH's editing history. In any case, if he is unblocked he should be forcibly renamed due to name similarities to King of Hearts. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not an admin, but the dog ate my homework "my brother is the real vandal" is the most transparent unblock request ever. Good decline, Bstone is incredibly wrong. After ec: he shouldn't be unblocked. Net negative to the project, no interest in contributing positively, quite apart from the sock/meat issues. // roux   18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm too involved myself to review your <subliminal message> completely reasonable and correct </subliminal message> unblock decline myself, but for any other editors choosing to waste their time reviewing this, note that the checkuser's conclusions indicate that the half dozen or so sockpuppet accounts were all editing from a "similar set of computers similar to those which might be found in a typical office environment". So these brothers evidently work together too.

Might I suggest that we've allowed this person to waste enough of our time? When we have ANI threads about sockpuppetry that go on for this long, the case is usually more complex and the puppeteer is at least slightly less obvious than this one. Time to let the thread die and let the bot do it's job, I think. --barneca (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

KingOfHearts came into IRC and asked if anyone would be willing to post a message for him here. I agreed. He asked me to say: I have two computer in a room at my house that connect through a router that does not mean we work together, me and my brother are still in high school the reason why one of the ips is registred to FCPS. Raul654 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Methinks thou do'est protest too much" ♪BMWΔ 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Bill O'Reilly employed high school students. Didn't one of them claim to work for Bill O'Reilly? --Smashville 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He just made a post that his "brother" made...only his brother said his real username was KingOfHearts...whoops! Plaxicoed! --Smashville 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

IRC transcript

I talked with KingOfHearts in IRC about his claims of innocence. Here is the transcript (I am Ceiling_Cat)

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - I have a question for you

<Ceiling_Cat> And I intend to post my question and your answer to the AN

<Ceiling_Cat> Agreed?

<KingsOfHearts> Ok

<KingsOfHearts> yes?

<Ceiling_Cat> I'd like to get something straight. You're saying that your brother made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Fru23&curid=20171985&diff=257717171&oldid=257705823 - from his computer

<Ceiling_Cat> right?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> Yes i also retired mine

<Ceiling_Cat> And then you want and made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:KingsOfHearts&curid=14957465&diff=257718062&oldid=257604179 - from your computer, yes?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> we got caught

<KingsOfHearts> so i was trying to get out of it ad save one account

<KingsOfHearts> and save one account.

<The359> those edits 4 minutes apart is quite suspect

<KingsOfHearts> Ya I was with him.

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - and you made them from seperate computers?

<KingsOfHearts> I think it was same comp

<Ceiling_Cat> that's awfully convenient

<KingsOfHearts> He told me that irl that i was going to get banned

<KingsOfHearts> But the fact that we are brothers goes back like 4 monthes ago

<KingsOfHearts> http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Please_UnBlock_me

<Ceiling_Cat> were you ever editing at the same time from seperate computers?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<Ceiling_Cat> when?

<KingsOfHearts> I don't know

<KingsOfHearts> i could get him to though.

<Ceiling_Cat> Ok, one last question

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> sure

<Ceiling_Cat> These edits:

<Ceiling_Cat> (one sec)

<Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256944340&oldid=256510063

<Ceiling_Cat> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)&curid=188564&diff=256946659&oldid=256944340

<Ceiling_Cat> 14 minutes apart, to the same article.

<Ceiling_Cat> Explain please.

<KingsOfHearts> I don't know

<KingsOfHearts> I can't realy

<Ceiling_Cat> were you on the same computer?

<KingsOfHearts> No

<KingsOfHearts> same Ip yes

<KingsOfHearts> we have to computers it the same room

<KingsOfHearts> *two

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - unfortunately, I have checkuser, and checkuser tells me that you're lying.

<The359> Shocker

<KingsOfHearts> So is the ip differant

* Rjd0060 has been telling him that for days, with no checkuser :P

<Ceiling_Cat> I am posting the data now

Checkuser evidence shows the edits in question almost certainly came from the same computer. He's lying when he says they used different computers. Therefore I am inclined to disbelieve his claims in their entirety. Raul654 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, we have a saying: "admit you screwed up, the repercussions will always be less than if you deny and get found out". It goes hand in hand with "make me come investigating, and you're gonna get screwed". ♪BMWΔ 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully request redacting that log unless both parties gave their consent to have that published here. Durova 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was on the channel too, KingOfHearts has said that he "has no objections" at 20:47 --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If he agreed then... Durova 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Endgame

I don't see any acknowledgment of impropriety, respect for rules, truthful statements, or constructive edits forthcoming. Given the shameless pattern of deceit, disruption, and denial ad infinitum, are we to the point of WP:RBI for all subsequent issues involving this editor? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He certainly seems to be trying very hard to exhaust everyone's patience. Shimgray | talk | 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

De facto RBI on a given person/user strikes me as sounding a lot like a community ban. Is this what we're proposing? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment If you look all the way up, you'll notice the original request was for a topic ban, akin to community ban, and sock puppetry was discovered later. :) PS: I'd like to congratulate everyone on finding the sock puppetry and blocking KoH so fast. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez... guess I forgot what we had set out to do here anyway. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's called serendipity. Baseball Bugs 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on if we should propose a defacto RBI / topic (aka community per Mendaliv) ban would be welcome. Although I guess RBI is de facto for any new sockpuppets either way.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:KingsOfHearts is being advised to create a new account to get around the alleged compromising of his account by his alleged brother. Supposing that actually happens, how would this proposed topic ban come into play, if at all? Baseball Bugs 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So we will be ignoring the sock puppeting then? Its one thing to be compromised, but another to create at least 5 sockpuppets.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope not. What I'm asking is whether any new user that KOH creates should be pre-empted from editing this topic. Baseball Bugs 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that the checkuser turned up a few "sleeper" accounts (at least it says so above, I think), so I endorse a topic ban at the least. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, request indef block of User:HelpPlease234 based on probable sockpuppet relationship (see KoH's talk page for evidence/ here) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted on WP:AIV, but they might decline it. Maybe coincidental, but notice the HelpPlease234 vs. Fru23. What's with the digits? And I wonder what Fru is supposed to mean anyway, but we never got that far. Baseball Bugs 08:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but I'm guessing there are probably more sleeper accounts that has slipped by us, I mean this confession was from September! Lastly, if you think about it, if KoH KNEW his brother had access to his account in September, why didn't KOH change the password since obviously, right now the "legitimate" KoH owner has access to the account (why they are asking for compromised issue)?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because he/they are trying to figure out how to get unblocked somehow. Baseball Bugs 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser did not turn up the now-indef-blocked User:HelpPlease234. Perhaps a checkuser should be requested on that one and see what else crawls out from under the Fox 'n Socks rocks. Baseball Bugs 10:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I honestly don't see any reason to assume good faith any more with this guy. The statements made by the array of sockpuppets wholly contradicts this "it was my brother" nonsense, and given the repeated disruption I don't see any reason to allow it to continue in any form. This should end in a community ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Baseball Bugs 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban, possibly banz0r. This is getting silly. We had a lot of !votes in favor of the topic ban earlier, but since this is a different thing, I think a new proposal might be in order (perhaps at WP:AN, which is where ban proposals are supposed to go anyway). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse new checkuser, endorse discussion for community ban. I thought about it and KoH's "brother" basically admitted to sock abuses in the evidence for Helpme, since he said "one of my brother's accounts". Last I checked, One Of meant more than one, which establishes sock puppetry from at least September (probably earlier if I looked at the creation logs for the other socks). At least this puppeteer doesn't seem to know much tech wise on avoiding checkuser or else we'd have to resort to the old WP:DUCK test. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree - After reading through this, well.. ya.. I shouldn't have to say any more.— Dædαlus 08:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about taking this to arbitration. I'm sure he'll advise them of the 10-or-so blocks for contentious editing and the sock farm that was exposed by his "brother" inadvertently revealing the IP address. Baseball Bugs 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• A total block is a blunt tool that policy says should be used only with extreme care. It doesn't seem to have benefited the project by changing the behaviour of the user in question, and another total block probably won't either. A topic ban is problematic, since the boundaries around a topic are slippery, and it does little to encourage the user to be more reasonable. Is it possible to put the user on "probation" instead, with an agreement not to edit the article (while still enabling conributions to its talk page? Has mediation been attempted? There must be better ways than blocking to turn a difficult user into a productive one ... Tony (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The sockfarm's primary purpose is to bend the O'Reilly articles in the direction the user wants, i.e. to remove material he doesn't like. The user has consistently done this despite attempts at discussion. There is no evidence that their behavior is likely to change. The project benefits when disruptive users are kept at bay. Baseball Bugs 11:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the community has been dealing with this guy for months with constant POV pushing, edit warring, and a complete disregard for both other editors' opinions and Misplaced Pages policies and expectations. Pile that on top of what's now been shown to be a lengthy willingness to participate in sockpuppetry and outright lie about it, and I just don't see any hope of rehabilitation. These sorts of people rely on the good faith of those unfamiliar with the situation; in this instance I would strongly urge you to take the word of so many admins and editors who are familiar with this lunacy. The frequency, length and duration of threads related to these abuses on ANI should be a weighty enough testament to the need for a community ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Death threats

70.224.54.239 has posted a threat on an article, and probably needs to be blocked. Although it may not be likely that the vandal will carry out these threats, it is common practice to notify ANI in these cases. If consensus expresses that an abuse report should be filed, I can do it. NOT ALL ISPS IGNORE ABUSE REPORTS (although this is an AT&T IP). PCHS-NJROTC 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours in the meantime. Dunno if an abuse report is merited, but definitely contact the police. Blueboy96 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are such death threats typically reported to the FBI? If so I don't think an AR would be necessary. In any case, the Template:City-state police might be worth contacting, as well as the Indianapolis local FBI office since the threat was made across state lines. Contact info for the cops and the feds. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WhoIs, this IP address is registered to a "Private Address" in Chicago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:18

I'm reasonably sure that's in error or is just referring to the network backbone controlling that area (see the custname "rback4b"); South Bend is very close to Chicago anyway. The hostname (adsl-70-224-54-239.dsl.sbndin.ameritech.net) indicates it's a South Bend, Indiana address. You could also check the geolocate info which backs this up. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

EC TrustedSource says that this IP belongs to an AT&T DSL customer in South Bend, Indiana, so I'm guessing it's either there or somewhere around there. Note that usually TrustedSource is pretty accurate, it's not 100% accurate; the IP is most likely based somewhere around there (or actually in the city or South bend). TrustedSource says that my Embarq DSL IP is based in Fort Myers, Florida even though I'm in Deep Creek, Florida. PCHS-NJROTC 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll contact law enforcement tomarrow, unless someone else wants to do it tonight (or today depending on what part of the world you're in) PCHS-NJROTC 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the contact information for the Chicago Police Department. Probably want to go with the non-emergency number. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:22

See my previous comment- this is not a Chicago address. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My mistake, I guess WhoIs needs to update their information. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:26

I've contacted the FBI at http://tips.fbi.gov and asked them to contribute to the discussion here. A copy of the message I sent them is here. PCHS-NJROTC 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to FBI: to contribute to this discussion, simply click the edit button next to the text "Death threats." PCHS-NJROTC 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on the language you use in your message to the FBI; when one acts to report on-Wiki behavior to law enforcement he does so as a private citizen and, as the community have said many times, in the context of all manner of extra-wiki interactions one might have with non-Wikipedians, must be at pains to make clear that he or she does not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation or even for our particular project. The "you are welcome" and (particularly) the "we look forward" locutions suggest that you speak in an official capacity. Anyone is, of course, welcome to report putative threats to law enforcement (as a libertarian who would not support the criminalization of the instant behavior and who is disinclined to see taxpayer monies be used in frivolous pursuits, I do not undertake so to act), and for various reasons we permit such reports to be discussed on-wiki, but in its rejection (or failure to adopt) WP:SUICIDE and WP:TOV the community have made clear that we take no broad official position on how threats ought to be dealt with and most especially that once an editor in his or her individual capacity has reported a threat we must not permit the project to be disrupted any further; inviting a law enforcement agency to join in a discussion about a threat is altogether inconsistent with those understandings, and inviting in an official capacity is even more pernicious (and makes us look profoundly silly, but we need not reach that issue). Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's not a death threat. It may be otherwise criminal (although most probably not), but it's not a death threat. "I'm going to kill John Doe" is a death threat; "I'd like to kill John Doe", "I wish I could kill John Doe", "I wish someone would kill John Doe", "I wish John Doe would die", and any variants thereof are not death threats, at least to the extent that they are not said to evoke the same reaction from a target as would a death threat. Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What he said. C'mon people, use your noodles. Reporting childish vandalism like that to law enforcement is a tremendous waste of time and resources. L0b0t (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This didn't need to be reported, and the failure to explicitly note you are not a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation was extremely poor also. Daniel (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the harm with erring on the side of caution and reporting this. Look at it this way: it only goes to show that different people's views of credible threats vary significantly, including those in the media who latch onto stories of unreported threats of violence. The best position to take for the project is to report something if you consider it credible. As to PCHS' message... yes it could have been written better, but considering the circumstances... I think we should have a form letter for this sort of situation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've written a basic page on a form letter here. Input and suggestions would be welcomed! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is almost at WP:Perennial proposals stage. Thus far, there hasn't been any consensus to support the promotion of a WP:TOV type page. There's two issues: 1) whether or not editors (or just admins) should be required to follow a policy mandating that they respond appropriately to threats of violence or suicide, and 2) if so, does it require that someone contact the authorities, or is there room for judgment? As far as I can see, opinions are widely spread and more or less equally divided. Trolls? Cries for help? There are very strong believers in both camps, unlikely to be swayed. So we get what we have now, which is a horribly predictable weekly reenactment of of "So and so posted made a TOV! What'll we do?!?". It's becoming farcical. Or Sartrean. Bullzeye 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way; there's going to be situations where we should report a threat. I recall several from a little over a month ago. Shouldn't we try to encourage those reports to be straightforward for those having to read them? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been far more simple vandalism than this that has been brought to the attention of law enforcement, and the consensus at the time was to report to law enforcement. My proposal was to bring this to the attention of an ISP. :S PCHS-NJROTC 01:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you at all. The issue here is that we have an issue with meat world consequences (up to and potentially including criminal charges, death, etc.) that nobody can come to an agreement on, because they either see all threat-makers as childish trolls to be RBIed (0 cries for help), or they see them as 100% cries for help, and any failure to promptly call the authorities will surely result in a disaster. This stupid schism needs to stop before the confusion results in somebody actually following through on something they pledged on Misplaced Pages. The fallout would be immense. You think Siegenthaler Sr. was bad PR... Bullzeye 13:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The FBI should just set up a special web site labeled Click here to report anonymous death threats made over the Internet. (We thank our sponsors TOYS R US and DUNKIN DONUTS for their help.) Then anyone who feels wracked by guilt if they do not report every childish prank can drop their report and get a good night's sleep. The pranksters too can eliminate the middleman.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightbot

I've only followed the previous discussion with this bot in passing, but isn't this the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be doing? JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. // roux   17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is his explanation: "I said that I would stop fixing these errors because I got frustrated. I am no longer frustrated. I see these errors still exist so I decided to start fixing the errors again. ... I find it hard to be persuaded that errors should not be fixed." Tennis expert (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is his alternative explanation: "Due to frustration at the hostility, I declared that Lightbot would not fix these errors. I was hoping that would stimulate somebody else to fix them. However, it seems that people are prepared to complain when others fix errors but are not willing to fix errors themselves. So I decided that I would start fixing them again.". Tennis expert (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The following are some links to related discussions regarding this bot: the operator's talk page and the old AN thread.--Rockfang (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And an additional discussion that started yesterday on the operator's talk page and has since moved to the MOSNUM talk page. Mlaffs (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing piped links is a bad thing? Why? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing piped links isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly when they're scattered throughout the text of an article. What's happening here is removing piped links from inboxes and tables. Removing piped links from an infobox or a table, where MOSNUM explicitly envisions they might be appropriate, is a bad thing. Removing piped links that provide valid contextual information, without replacing them with a link to that same information in a different manner, is a bad thing. Removing piped links, when a previous AN thread on the exact same issue was resolved by that same user saying they would no longer do so, is a bad thing. Mlaffs (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note: IIUC the 'bot operator's rational in the current sweep is that autoforatted dates (], ] is incompatible/not allowed with a piped link. Accepting that statement on faith, it is reasonable for the 'bot to delink both halves of ], ] and point out that only autoformatting or piping may be used. The 'bot had been changed to do that.

The troubling thing is that it looks like the 'bot cannot identify when the mark up is in a 'box/table or in the body of the article text.

- J Greb (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be wise to wait until this is closed before making these automated edits. However unless the consensus changes wildly in the next days I see no community support for keeping these Easter egg links anywhere. --John (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the introduction to the relevant section of that RFC specifies that the discussion there concerns piped links in the body of articles, not within tables and infoboxes. The latter is the issue here. Mlaffs (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse also is removing piped links manually. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. So, regardless of whether there is a technical problem with Lightbot, Lightmouse obviously believes that piped links should be removed on sight. Tennis expert (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because some of these removals are in infoboxes and tables where they are permitted to be piped, the bot needs to stop removing any piped links unless it can distinguish between those that are permitted and those that are not.--2008Olympian 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question:

• Combining a concealed link with autoformatting is wrong because it is a broken and invalid format.
• It has always been wrong.
• It is wrong if you like concealed links and it is wrong if you don't like concealed links.
• It is wrong if you like autoformatting and it is wrong if you don't like autoformatting.
• It was wrong before the RFC and it will be wrong after the RFC.
• It has never been permitted in any location on any page.

Those editors that are most involved in the debate about date links, should know why it is invalid. Those editors that understand why it is invalid and broken should be able to explain to those that don't understand. It is not a matter of opinion and I am tired of having to explain the valid formats for a technology that I don't even like. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of you confusing the issues. What I'm talking about is your (Lightmouse) systematic removal of piped links that have nothing to do with autoformatting. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not the topic of this ANI. Do you want to start another ANI? Lightmouse (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the topic of this ANI, and I recommend that you start participating fully. Tennis expert (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And I've just burned another chunk of valuable editing time fixing another large batch of articles where Lightbot has taken to stripping the brackets from both the month-day pair and the "year in radio" contextual year link even though simply stripping the brackets from the month-day pair would fix any possible autoformatting issue. (Sample diffs: here, here, here, here, here etc.) Given Lightmouse's earlier promises to stop stripping "year in radio" links and his recent dismissal of that promise as his being "frustrated" I feel we're well past the point of continuing to assume good faith. - Dravecky (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask that this bot stop operating until these complaints are fixed. I am not blocking the bot at this time as it is not running. However irrespective of the bot's task, (ignoring that there is currently an RFC on the MOS guideline that this bot is acting on), if the bot is creating a mess it needs to stop. Lightmouse, why is the bot doing this? If it is a bug, please fix it, or disable the buggy function(s) before the bot runs again. In short please fix the buggy behavior. My comments do not apply to whether or not the bot should be running at all, merely the fact that we have a buggy bot operating —— nixeagle 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Tony1:

(1) With respect to the opening post above: no, it's not "the exact opposite" of what the bot is supposed to do. Breaking the autoformatting syntax with a clumsy "year-in-X" pipe is an error, and Lightbot, fortunately, fixes such errors. Please note, users JPG-GR, roux, and nixeagle.

(2) The "concealed" link per se, even if it were not responsible for messing up the autoformatting, is in conflict with the well-established style-guide clauses

".., make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link."

and

"Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., ]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g., ''(see ])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all."

A current RfC has overwhelmingly rejected the notion that separate and explicit consensus is required to use a bot or script to bring articles into compliance with specific clauses of the style-guides. The idea that somehow the raising of a question through an RfC is reason to freeze activities that it concerns, especially when the results show that the activities are strongly endorsed by the community, appears to be an invention for the convenience of the moment. The results of questions in another RfC concerning links are not framed to provide evidence of community objection to the removal of links, although there has been a re-emergence of the noisy claims to the contrary by two users over the past few days.

(3) Newcomers to the issue of dates and linking may not be aware that Tennis expert and Locke Cole, with a few hangers-on, have been conducting an intensive campaign to thwart community consensus in favour of a reformed approach to these issues, which were set in motion nearly five months ago. I believe that their statements should be considered carefully in this light.

(4) I note that there have been threats to block if the bot is restarted. Please note two policy rules:

First, that "Blocking is a serious matter. An administrator should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and should do so only if other means are unlikely to be effective.", and that "Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages.. In view of the fact that removing the error is in accordance with the style guides and is a technical fix, plain and obvious for all to see, blocking action by an admin would need to be explicitly justified on the basis of this rule, and to stand up to legal scrutiny.

Second, that an admin should provide the appropriate user(s) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions, using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries;. What "suitable prior warning" means has not been legally tested in an ArbCom case, but it is within the realm of possibility that the interpretation would include the provision of diffs to the targeted user. This is particularly important where retrospective analysis of admin actions is involved. Tony (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, Please see WP:BOT, there are certain rules as regards to bot operations. If there are known bugs, or suspected bugs, good bot operators stop operating the bots in question until the discussion is over or until they fix/remove the problem functions. As I said above it has nothing to do with the task, but more with the buggy behavior. Of course if discussion here or elsewhere ends up saying the behavior is not buggy, then run the bot all you like. I'm not telling lightmouse that he will be blocked, merely the bot account. Again if discussion here ends up saying there is not a bug, that is fine, however until that happens, I think it is wise of the bot op to not operate the program in question. There is no time limit on what the bot is doing, if it gets done today or next week, but it is hard for people to undo bots when they are malfunctioning. —— nixeagle 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1, I mostly agree with your comments above, but just one reponse to your section 2, if you don't mind. If you look at the diff provided by JPG-GR at the very beginning of this thread, you'll see that it involves the removal of a piped link from an infobox, not from the main prose of an article. While conceding, as I have before, that there may be better ways to provide the information, use of a piped link to a "year-in-X" article is completely consistent with the remaining text to the second quote you provide above from the manual of style, which reads as follows:

"However, piped links may be useful:

• in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists); and
• in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sports biographies that link to numerous season articles."

It's these specific edits that started this particular discussion, and with which I and other users were concerned when this was last raised at AN in mid-November. In that regard, I'll ask again as I've asked before -- if Lightbot is going to fix the broken autoformatting within an infobox or table, would it not be more appropriate to fix it by removing the link to the date/month link and leaving the "year-in-X" link in place? I think that's all at least some of us are asking for. Removing the "year-in-X" link and replacing it with a bare year link removes a valid, consistent-with-style contextual link and restores the now-deprecated autoformatting, which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense on its face.

The net result of this will end up requiring three edits when one would do. Edit one sees Lightbot remove the contextual link to replace it with a bare link. Edit two will inevitably see someone - possibly even Lightmouse via AWB - remove the bare date/month link and the year link, since linking in this manner is deprecated, leaving no links at all. Another user would then need to make edit three, to restore a contextual link. Mlaffs (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, apart from that exception that is not well-worded (I suspect it was put there for tables alone and the infobox bit added later as an afterthought), the net result is that no one will click on it: they'll think it's a solitary year-link. This is a clear example where inserting an explicit link in the "See also" section will attract many more cross-visitors: isn't that the point? My take is—lightbot has uncovered the opportunity to make the link better. Tony (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, please stop misrepresenting the consensus of the RFC. Implying that it's just Tennis Expert and myself is a blatant misrepresentation as well. The sooner you stop trying to convince the entire Wiki that it's two editors vs. the community (when it's really MOSNUM regulars vs. a rather large chunk of people annoyed with the way you roll over consensus and pretend it agrees with you) the better off you'll be. Anyone seeing my name thrown in there (despite this being my first comment in this section) should be able to tell you're just playing a canned response in the hopes of influencing perception. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You have no new arguments? It's surprising that the same circular process continues. In any case, this is not the forum for circularising: MOSNUM is. Tony (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a thought Tony, maybe next time you shouldn't mention my name in a section I'm not even participating in. See my previous response for why you shouldn't be doing that (about influencing perception). Your smear campaigns are not going to win you any points and definitely aren't the path towards compromise or consensus at MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Swedish Ski team/Swedish bikini team!?

Why is Swedish Ski Team redirected to Swedish Bikini Team. Seems very stupid. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that they are the same thing, more or less, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swedish Ski Team. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No way, Swedish Bikini team has nothing with it to do, Maybe swedish ski team is not notable for an article but the redirect schould be deleted if so. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this diff - as originally created, they are the same thing. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, They are not, Seems to be a joke edit. Anyway i think we schould keep Swedish Bikini team as it is and delete the redirect from swedish ski team. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can someone see something on google that fits whit the diff? The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rolling Camel somewhat. Since Sweden does indeed have a national ski team. having that term redirect to a beer commercial "bikini team" gag is a little silly. I've created a new disambig page. — Satori Son 20:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, these teams seem to be in pairs. Baseball Bugs 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WTRF-DT3 possibly copied on station's website

It seems---and let me stress seems--that WTRF-DT3's article is copied on the station's website without credit to WP:

Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a note about this on the page but Metros/Either Way removed the note as "trivia". The Misplaced Pages page was up first before the company's website was. The company's website is a direct copy of the Misplaced Pages page. This also happened with WBOY-DT2 and . - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:18

• Misplaced Pages is free content released under the GNU free documentation licence - meaning that it can be freely distributed by the public without having to worry about copyright infringement. Now, if we copied the text from that site, then it would be a problem. But it appears we were the original creators of the text, as cited by NeutralHomer above, so it's fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the note stating that "we were first" go back up so another user doesn't get it confused that someone copied the page from the company website? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:24
    • I don't think it's a good idea to mention it in the article, as it would make it sound less professional - however, it might be a good idea to mention something at the top of the article's talk page. Or am I mistaken? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, that's not quite sufficient, Master&Expert. Our GFDL-licensed content can only be freely distributed by the public without having to worry about copyright infringement...if they comply with the terms of the GFDL. If WTRF fails to acknowledge the authors of the content, if they fail to include a copies of the GFDL notice and license, of if they fail to adhere in some other way to the terms of the GFDL, they are very much infringing copyright.

Now, the carrot usually works better than the stick in these situations. A polite email or phone call to the station – from someone cool-headed, with a good command of English – is probably sufficient. It's even possible that the web design company they hired nicked our stuff without the station being aware of it. Something along the lines of "We're flattered that you're using our article, and you're welcome to continue to do so provided that your site is updated to acknowlege its source and license. All content on Misplaced Pages is released under the GFDL, which means this, that, and the other thing...and so forth. Misplaced Pages articles are written entirely by volunteers, who receive no compensation beyond public acknowledgement for their work...." You can also feel free to use some of the polite phrases from Misplaced Pages:Standard GFDL violation letter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten, you seem to know much of the policies and the language of them. If you want to give them a call, phone numbers can be found here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 21:51

• Just for reference, this edit of August 2 appears to match History of WVM Properties nearly word for word after the first 3 words. It is possible that they both came from a common source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• If we were first, the GFDL still applies, notably: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." On the other hand, if the editor making that change grabbed it illegally, then we have to remove it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• This wouldn't be the first time that a media outlet (be it radio or TV) used their station's Misplaced Pages page word-for-word on their corporate or station website. Radio Station WDHC copied the History section of the Misplaced Pages page to their station's website....verbatim. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:41
  • Goes to show that Misplaced Pages is a popular website - which is why we must take our copyight policies seriously. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That is what I tried to show in this from the WTRF-DT3 page, but it was removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 04:46
      • Maybe the most important part of this is not so much to include that statement part of the article content, but to inform editors that the Misplaced Pages content was used on the company's website, so that editors don't use the station's website as a source to support the article content in the future - because that would be a circular reference. That could be done by entering the information as a comment in the Wikitext and also noting it on the talk page (as suggested by Master&Expert) in an infobox at the top. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't know how to enter informtion as a comment. If you want to do that, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:03

I haven't researched the article details enough to enter the comment myself. I'll place a note on your talk page with the wikimarkup for entering comments so you can proceed yourself if you want to. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That would work great :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:39

I wrote the comment to the WTRF-DT3 page. If someone wants to reword it or update it, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 05:52

There's a template for article talkpages for this situation... let me see if I can find it. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Backwardscopyvio}} is the one. Take a look. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that it's probably not a great idea to mention the copyvio in the article text unless the copyvio becomes notable. It would seem to violate WP:UNDUE and it's not a great self-reference to make. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to change/update the intext comment, please feel free to do so. I put it there so there would be any confusion as to which page came first. Didn't want an editor "down the line" coming across the page and the corporate page and thinking someone copied the corporate page to Misplaced Pages (when it is the other way around). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 15, 2008 @ 21:48

Well that's more or less the exact purpose of {{backwardscopyvio}}; it indicates to bots/editors that the article is not a copyvio of the link provided, but the other way around. I've added it to the talkpage now. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Misplaced Pages does not hold the copyright to the article, the individual editors of that articles do. If one of them wishes to do so, there are examples of letters that can be sent to the station. -- lucasbfr 16:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to handle something like this is to notify the WikiMedia Foundation. If individual editors or admins try to handle it on their own, it will only lead to confusion. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WMF has the resources (and will) to ask every website that reuse our content without proper attribution to stop. -- lucasbfr 09:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WMF are not responsible for the edits made by editors which prevents them from being successfully sued due to libel etc. I would imagine it would be considered quite contradictory to that position if the WMF started taking an active stance in defending the integrity of the copyright of its contributors. 131.251.141.117 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Defamation

Last 2 months I am (and others) reverting 4 different SPA (user:I am Sario, user:I am Mario, user:NoseNDAh) and IP accounts (user:72.75.20.29) which are deleting well sourced Albert Einstein protest for killing of one of the founders of albanology Milan Šufflay with explanation defamation of Einstein.

Einstein statement is well sourced with 3 sources and 1 of this is New York Times which is wikipedia reliable source. My question is if adding this Einstein statement in article Ustaše is is defamation or removing this well sourced statement is vandalism  ?--Rjecina (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking it is not defamation because you cannot defame the dead. – ukexpat (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember Mario; there seems to be some serious socking going on as expected. MuZemike (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified all recently involved in the edit-warring of WP:ARBMAC, and the likely consequences of continuing to revert the article (I am Mario is currently indefblocked and I am Sario only made three edits back in November). It's quite possible there is some socking involved, but WP:SSP might be a better place to bring that up. EyeSerene 14:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that there was the same issues with the article Ustaše, so someone may want to review the characters there as well. Also, see User talk:72.75.20.29 along with my statement on Mario at ARBMAC for exactly how seriously they are taking this. We need to put a stop to it before they start harassing newer editors. I'm wondering about blocking 72.xx for repeating the ADL allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP is probably NoseNDAh - see User talk:NoseNDAh (though it depends how one reads it). Both are also probably I am Mario, given the edit patterns. I certainly don't have any problem with you blocking the lot, per WP:DUCK. EyeSerene 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Go ahead with the block. My goal was to warn some of you publicly about this and other cases of political propaganda and public acts of defamation - spotted and exposed by other editors too - who were already blocked. What we are going to do - is outside Misplaced Pages and their 'experts' (EyeSerene, Rjecina, Ricky81682, etc). --72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:72.75.20.29 following the comment above and the further incivility at Ustaše. Can a checkuser please determine if this is rotating, static or what and block this mess? It's stressful to have constant "I'm going to report to the Anti-Defamation League as a Holocaust denials" threats from all over the place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It was the Ustaše article I looked at. At the risk of making myself sound even stupider than I really am, I'm still not completely sure who is claiming what, and about whom, and from which POV, with this whole circus. I know disruption when I see it though, and my watchlist grows regardless... if it's possible to get some checkuser help, that would be very welcome. EyeSerene 10:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys but block or ban of user:72.75.20.29 is not possible because we are having 66.217.xxx.xxx (user:66.217.132.168) and possible user:85.165.239.70 which has made maybe even 7 reverts in around in 9 hours in article Jasenovac (I am unrelated with that dispute)--Rjecina (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the recent IP disruption, I've semi-protected Jasenovac for a week (and will extend as necessary). EyeSerene 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Baker (activist)

The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".

Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now reverted the article back to a very early version, removing nearly all the content. I will notify the article's author of the BLP policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the pre-snipped version may be viewed here. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has been reverted; this format I have never seen in an article before. It looks more like a user page. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Abusive single purpose account

More random musing (talk · contribs) only edits at Akbar the Great, an article currently quite unbalanced in its perspective. I first had problems with him when he kept using blatant original research to tie the subject of the article to the Nazis, which he first introduced in June , and disputed before I came around .

He took one source for a dress code under Akbar and another source about a dress code for Jews under the Nazis (that didn't draw a comparison to Akbar), and drew an original comparison

This is incorrect. Other sources also say Hindus of India were forced to wear discriminatory patches. I have addedd today one more source: . We also know that Nazis forced jewish people to wear patches of colors to discriminate against them. More random musing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained too many times, the comparison to the Nazis was not found in any sources; this comparison was your original research. It is difficult at this point to believe that you still cannot grasp this. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. Article said, from a couple of sources, "in akbar's realm people of hindu creed were discriminated by having to wear patches of cloth on their dress". Then from another source the article mentioned "Under Nazi's realm jewish people were discriminated against by having to wear colored patches on there clothes". Both facts are well corroborated. So it is not original research. More random musing (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I painstakingly explained this violation to him , and after many unconvincing claims to not understand how it is original research , he eventually stopped (likely because other users were noticing his abuse).

Now, he is trying to mine quotes also to make Akbar look more "jihadi" than mainstream accounts . I undid this extensive quote-farming , but he re-added it while describing my edit as "vandalism" . I repeated with a greater explanation , which he again reverted suggesting my edit was vandalism .

While this went on, he also accused me of vandalism on my talk page , claiming that undoing large edits is vandalism (as if I should tolerate a big bad edit), and again , this last being my "final warning."

Yes I was planning on seeking help because you were not explaining why you deleted this and this which had been there till it got deleted as part of these bogus edits , and this revert . More random musing (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was "not explaining" why I deleted your quote mining? That's a dishonest description; I explained that you were mining quotes (ultimately from primary sources), further skewing the article. I don't know what some of those other edits are, some of them don't seem to have anything much to do with me - maybe they were collateral damage during a revert, but one of those you weren't using a source for anyway. Chedorlaomer (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have just confirmed that you were not paying attention to what you were editing. Please be a bit more careful with your edits. Thanks. More random musing (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that in the past he has behaved similarly, with quote-mining, possible original research, and generally attempts to make Akbar look like an extremist by removing claims of moderation and very selectively exploiting sources to emphasize the alleged extremism:

• quote-mining
• Removing claims of moderation (sourced or unsourced)
• Very selectively using sources to present Akbar as extremist instead

Now, I'm not sure how many of these really follow from the sources (he has shown himself willing to construct OR), but the general picture does not look good. He seems dedicated to using various forms of abusive or exploitative editing to skew the article against mainstream accounts of Akbar, and his single purpose nature is also suspicious. Perhaps he is a banned Hindu nationalist who has different accounts for different pages so that the pattern cannot be detected? Whatever the case, his editing has clearly been abusive and now he has been calling me a vandal. I haven't the slightest idea why we should tolerate this kind of editor. Chedorlaomer (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More random musing has sometimes exceeded proper bounds, but generally seems to cite references for his addiitons. There is an element of anachronism involved here. Akbar the Great was liberal for his time, but followed many traditional practices which seem oppressive by modern standards. A balanced article would place him properly in his historical and cultural context and not compare his actions to modern practices. Fred Talk 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing references does not guarantee that it is not original research or out-of-context, as the attempt to tie Akbar to "Nazis" well demonstrates. That he cites so many (that can be difficult to check) is even more dangerous. One editor on the talk page stated that checked a few references and found them to be "neatly synthesised hoaxes," though I'm not sure if they were specifically from More random musing (I'll look into it). Aside from his blatant agenda and disregard for policy, his approach to disagreements has also been quite inappropriate, including calling others vandals and dragging his feet when confronted with explanations of how his edits violate policy or at least show no care for balance. It is very frustrating; it seems that he is not so concerned about our rules, but rather will ride anything to get where he wants. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Peven Everett Page Submission

I am trying to submit a page for the Artist Peven Everett who is a notable artist. There is a black list on his artist name. I am an Authorized party in writing this page. He meets the criteria as a notable artist in the following ways (minimally) He toured with Betty Carter and acted as her Music Director. He has toured with both Wynton and Brandford Marsalis. He appeared in Marsalis On Music a Documentary with an IMDB credit. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1991691/ He was written about in the NEW YORK TIMES magazine http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DE1E39F936A15755C0A963958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FJ%2FJazz He has more than one release on a major indie label including ABB records http://www.shopabb.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=55 He was written about on more than one occasion in Straight No Chaser magazine http://www.straightnochaser.co.uk/issues.php?id=75 http://www.straightnochaser.co.uk/issues.php?id=24 He also appears in other entries on wikipedia including Roy Davis Jr, American Boy, and List of House Artists

There are many other credible sources to cite when composing this article In closing I hope I am in the right place and I hope this can be resolved. Thank you "StudioConfession (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)"

A far as I can tell, the page has been created and deleted twice, but the deleted page name is not protected and anyone is welcome to have another go at creating it. Having said that, once you begin the page, someone is likely to notice that you're creating a page that has already been deleted which may draw the attention of new page patrollers. Consequently it's a good idea to get all your ducks in a row as quickly as possible once you start writing. It might be worthwhile creating the article in user space first and then moving it to article space so you can work on it at your leisure. Incidentally the last two attempts were deleted as A7 speedies, so there's no previous consensus to overcome. If you have the sources you say you do, it should easily survive any attempt at speedy deletion. I don't know enough about notability requirements for musicians to have an opinion on whether it will survive an AfD, but I think you've got at least a fighting chance.

By the way, what did you mean when you said you are "an Authorized party in writing this page"? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "authorized party" claim - please read Misplaced Pages's Conflict of Interest guideline. Sometimes being an "authorized biographer" specifically makes you unauthorized or, more precisely, strongly discouraged from, creating or heavily editing an article about that person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This user is obviously confused by the "Unauthorized" permission error which appears due to the subject's surname being on the title blacklist (there are at least two other reported false positives, see WP:AN). This is unrelated to the merits of the article they are trying to create. — CharlotteWebb 17:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Desperate.

Sprogeeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please can someone have a look? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :Possible sock or meat puppet of Putney Bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Sprogeeet for blatant 3RR. Inferno and Duncan seemed to be good-faithedly reverting vandalism (or at least believing they were doing so), so I ignored their edits. --Smashville 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I made up a word - "faithedly". --Smashville 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hey Mr. Foxworthy, have you ever done fool 'round on yer wife??" "No, I done always acted faithedly!" ♪BMWΔ 12:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says wikipedia doesn't originate information? OK, "faithedly" would be the adverb form. I wonder about the noun form. Maybe "faithiness"? Baseball Bugs 12:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gogo, create faithiness before someone else does. We already have truthiness anyway :p -- lucasbfr 10:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Barryob and User:Gnevin

• Note: see also WP:ANI#User talk:Lear 21 above. EyeSerene 09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A longstanding version (more than a year) of the Template:Infobox German Bundesland have been recently altered by two users claiming WP:Flags. Since this policy does not back explicitly the edits done by these two users namely User:Barryob and User:Gnevin, I User talk:Lear 21 kept upholding the established. I have introduced several arguments to the discussion while the two users refuse to argue otherwise than upholding a "recommendation" of a "guideline" or are incapable of citing other arguments. Since Misplaced Pages is based on discussion and consensus, I consider the established version as valid and ask an Administrator to remind the users to stop edit warring while also reminding them start discussing. all the best Lear 21

I think you will find there are at least 5 editors on the template and a page of talk . You can't ignore that just because it doesn't suit you Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lear21, although I understand your wish to be heard, it's not really necessary to open a new thread and post the same thing in three different places ;) To address your comment, perhaps you are unaware that consensus can change? The old consensus might have been to include flags, but the new consensus seems to be that they should no longer be in the template. This decision violates no policies, so the other editors are perfectly entitled to make it. You rightly registered your objections on the template talk-page, but unfortunately failed to convince the other editors to change their minds, so I'm afraid this is something you'll just have to accept. The other editors have been reverting your edits to enforce their consensus - as long as they don't step over WP:3RR, this is legitimate and not regarded as edit-warring. Your reversions however, which were against the new consensus, were edit-warring. Most of us have been on the 'losing' side in content debates at some point, and although it's difficult (especially when it's something we care about), we expect editors to accept it with as much grace as possible and move on. EyeSerene 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty there doesn't really appear to be a real consensus either way in regard to flags if they are using the template flag as those editors who dislike them have the option in their preferences to hide the appearance of them The Bald One 12:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A collection of socks

Rlevse has just completed a checkuser on a collection of socks. I understand that checkusers don't block, and that I need to request blocks here? Accordingly, could someone take a look at the results and take whatever action is necessary?

The currently unblocked usernames are:

• User:United Kingdom & Northern Ireland
• User:Mysong
• User:Mysongcutalongruth

The temporarily blocked usernames are:

• User:Spainton (blocked until 7th January 2009)

The apparent puppetmaster is:

• User:Cyrusmilleyhannana (blocked until 3rd January 2009)

I believe that these socks are all incarnations of User:Bennet556 and User:Nimbley6, however the checkuser was unable to determine that for certain.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 02:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked all of the accounts listed above indefinately, citing the checkuser case. This looks like what was needed here, as the CU case indicated clear abusive sockpuppetry to me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much - these socks have been a right pain on Scottish articles recently. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 11:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment at my usertalk by User:QuackGuru

I have notified User:QuackGuru that he is not welcome to post article/content related discussion on my user talk page, and to take such discussion to the relevant article talk page. Despite these politely worded requests, his harassment continues. I have previously asked him not to post on my user talk page at all, but he has been informed by an admin that he is welcome to post on user talk pages as a form of dispute resolution. While I still believe a user should have control over their user_talk page, I respect the input from the admin, and welcome comments on my behaviour as part of dispute resolution. However, article content is best discussed at the article talk page where all involved editors can benefit from the discussion, and the repeated posting to my talk page is unwanted harassment. Hopefully and admin can find a amicable solution to this. DigitalC (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified QG of this thread. لennavecia 03:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Related complaint: User_talk:Shell_Kinney#Possible_3RR.2Fbullying_violation --Surturz (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It was bad faith by DigitalC to accuse me of wiki-lawyering and harrsment. It was bad faith by Surturz to accuse me of bullying. An editor falsely accused me of readding comments to a talk page. We have a lot of WP:AGF violations today. QuackGuru 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF does not mean OCTBIGFISOAETTC (Obstinately Continue To Believe In Good Faith In Spite Of All Evidence To The Contrary). Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Don't be the pot calling the kettle black. Besides, the user seems to be engaging in some soapboxery intended to harm Misplaced Pages and/or engage in Wiki-bashing callouts to Jimbo as well as Larry Sanger (see and ). User seem to disregard every bit of advice and warnings given and to persist on biting the hand that feeds all of us. MuZemike (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks a short block of Quackguru is in order.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok after taking a look at what's been going on while I was trying to catch some sleep here's what I've got: Controversial information was added to the Chiropractic article again without any discussion on talk first - everyone involved should be completely unsurprised that this didn't go over well and you should have known better. The fact that Levine, Surturz and DigitalC all showed up to support the change on the article talk rather quickly looks a lot like you coordinated this effort; that's also not likely to go over well and you should have known better. QuackGuru then reacted very poorly and extended the dispute to other editor's talk pages even though discussion was ongoing at the article talk. He then furthered this disruption by attempting to force an editor to answer on their talk by edit warring; it doesn't matter that he changed the wording slightly each time, it had the same effect. Finally this same group of editors plus TheDoctorIsIn all arrived at ANI to complain about QuackGuru, again giving the appearance that you are coordinating your efforts.

On to outcomes: I have blocked QuackGuru for a week; he has quite a lengthy block log related to similar disruption yet has never given an indication that he understands why his behavior is a problem or that he intends to change it. As for the rest of you Levine, Surturz, DigitalC, TheDoctorIsIn - its no secret that you're here to push a particular POV into the Chiropractic article. Other editors have attempted to work with you for many months despite repeated problems. Because the article is under special ArbCom sanctions which you have all been made aware of, this acting in tandem to push material into an article or sanction other editors is unlikely to be tolerated for long. I would suggest that you return to liberal use of the talk page and avoid the appearance of off-site coordination in the future. Shell 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Shell Kinney's level-headed response to this problem. There is no "winning side" in this dispute, and both sides come off as appearing unseemly. QG did certainly go over the limit in his talk-page edit warring, to the point of harassment; the block was good. I would have also probably returned the Chiropractic article to the state it existed in before the contentious edit was made, and protected the article at that state to encourage talk page discussion on the matter, such an action would have certainly been against the rules, but a probably necessary action given these circumstances; however I cannot disagree with Shell Kinney's admonition to everyone to stop trying to WP:GAME the system. On the balance, this was exactly what the situation needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill

Well.. To start off, this user has basically, almost only contributed to the article Troy Davis case, in which he or she has removed large amounts of information, changed things to slant in regards to their POV, and added content in regards to their POV. Did I mention the removed content was sourced?

To clarify, I know that WP:SSP is ---> that way.

Two editors to my knowledge believe that this user is a sockpuppet, I have asked for evidence regarding this sockpuppetry claim, but I have so far gotten no response.

The other user involved is Jatkins. And for ease of evidence gathering, and ability to contact, SelfEvidentTruths's user link.

Please weigh in.— Dædαlus 07:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe this user is a sockpuppet because he has been vandalizing the Troy Davis case by re-introducing POV-words and phrases that existed in the article before I rewrote the article in an accurate, NPOV-compliant manner, and expanded the article to reflect all that has been going on in this case. In other words, it's a person who was originally behind some of the biased, POV-statements that existed in the article, and then, when the article was cleaned-up and edited and rewritten, he assumed a new identity (with the intent to hide behind sockpuppets), User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill, and reinserted the same phases and statements. He has no other contributions under this name, and it seems this username was invented to delete what other editors have written, and reinsert unsourced, biased statements that he originally wrote in the article (under a different name). User:SelfEvidentTruths 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, he has reinserted the words "multiple corroborating eyewitnesses" and reinserted that Davis was convicted "on physical evidence" - these are unsourced claims, contradictory to many neutral and legal sources that covered this case (Amnesty Report, Time Magazine report, FBI Director's article, etc.). Because these specific claims (which violate WP policy) existed in the original article, and because he has been reinserting them, time and again, it is highly suspicious, and it seems he created new accounts in order to vandalize the article. User:SelfEvidentTruths 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis, the copkiller who unfortunately is the presently the focus of the article at the expense of the memory of the hero he smilingly and with deliberation assassinated, is identified . Bullets and shells from the shooting of Cooper (who identified Davis, solely, as his assailant) earlier the same day matching and/or not being distinguishable by type from bullets and shells at the murder of Officer MacPhail constitute physical evidence. By all means live in denial about, just don't represent the contrary on behalf of all of us to the public. There were multiple corroborating witnesses at the stage of the police investigation, at trial, and even now. At all occasions, the witnesses that resist definitively fingering Sylvester Coles corroborate those who explicitly finger Davis, in the same fashion that those who finger neither but affirm the assailant of Young to be the murderer corroborate those who only finger Davis as Young's assailant. That all being understood and acknowledged as my as my final comment on this distraction, you are invited now to give it up.HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess this answer to the question I asked on HOM's talk page could be taken as more or less worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... single purpose account, nothing but POV-pushing and editorializing, labeling of fair statements on his talk page as "trolling", behavior echoing a similarly-named user... and threatening words at the checkuser request page. So why are you all still messing with this guy? Baseball Bugs 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1 Edit war

This article is a battleground between three editors - Biscuittin, MickMacNee and Tony May. The case is at informal mediation, and a request for formal mediation was rejected because MickMacNee refused to accept the request.

Issues associated with the edit war include WP:ABF, WP:OWN, possible WP:3RR breaches, and accusations of WP:SOCK without raising a sockpuppet case.

As a result of a discussion on WT:UKRAIL, I looked over the article. I downgraded it from B to C class and gave an assessment of where the article needed working on. I pointed out to all three editors the WP:CON needed to be gained over the main area that they disagree on, and showed an example of how to achieve this. To be honest, Biscuittin has shown the most positive response to my comments, and is working at improving the article. There has been no positive response from the other two editors involved. I did ask an Admin to intervene, but that admin has declined as he feels he is not able to address the issues for personal reasons.

Therefore, I'm bringing this to AN/I for discussion as I am of the opinion the MickMacNee and Tony May are not going to stop shouting at each other and start talking to each other. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved, with Mjroots, in attempting to resolve this informally by asking the involved editors to take a step back and remain civil, so far without result. I have also raised the discussion at two project talk pages in an attempt to bring neutral editors into the discussion. I support the statement above by Mjroots and believe the situation requires intervention from an administrator. ColourSarge (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is about as lame as it gets. Seasoned edit-warrior MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (impressive block log) insists on including the text "50th A1" in the header to the section on Tornado, the 21st Century reproduction. He does this against clear consensus, and says that to have a section title that does not include this disputed claim is "POV" . It's Mick against all comers, and I suggest that if he repeats this edit then he should be blocked for edit warring and being a tit. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "admin ... not able to address the issues for personal reasons" should really read, "admin who is unable to resolve disputes between himself and others in real life, and who has no business trying to sort out disputes between other editors on Misplaced Pages." And that's putting things very, very mildly considering recent events. If I phrased the situation accurately without sugar-coating it, I'd be given several WP:NPA warnings, even if I'm only talking about myself.

Getting back to the conduct of editors on this article, the edit warring is continuing with no attempt to resolve the situation. I'm starting to think that the article should be protected (even at The Wrong Version) until some consensus is made, but that may not be the best solution. --Elkman 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am at the end of my tether with this one - all I can do is appeal for calm, and this is falling on deaf ears with reverting left right and centre. It seems the discussion on the talk page is no longer about whether or not Tornado is the 50th or not, but into a "he said she said" kind of debate where users are stuck on their being "right" rather than what is best for the article. I urge an administrator to look at the debate and take some form of decisive action soon.ColourSarge (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy has totally screwed this one up. His definition of consensus appears to have been, go with the person who is reverting the least. He has totally ignored the talk page comments of others that went against the other parties, but they were not reverting so they don't appear to have been counted in his assesment, leaving me to be painted as the lone crazy here (discussion of the issue currently spans that entire article talk page, two mediation pages, an EA filing, a 3RR report, and two rail related project talk pages), which is annoying when both of the others do not even understand some wikipedia basics. Given his comments in here I have absolute no doubt that Guy did not even attampt to review those discussions to see who (outside editors) thought what. He has achieved what was wanted, that is that a minority of three editors (including one obvious meat puppet), wished to have their personal opinion of the subject ranked equal to sources. The crux of the issue: Not a single source has been provided that states that Tornado is not the 50th A1. The header stated: Tornado - 50th A1. Now, there was scope for discussion about RS etc, but this was not possible while two of the three parties were not willing to properly frame their arguments in policy, or even abide by the most basic standards such as WP:TALK. Most recently, Tony May dissappeared while I outlined what he had to do to justify his edits, and he merely reappeared to continue reverting, and in response to the last three outside opinions effectively replied I see what you're saying but I'm still right. All the more galling when he started the whole thing by gaming 3RR and reverting sourced additions as "vandalism reverts". Biscuittin went on to work on a totally different part of the article and somehow then got credit for being the most constructive recent participant. (To emphaises the problem, he has now stated he is leaving the dispute to move onto other articles as he has got what he wanted - his opinion counted equal with sources). And I am left hanging with Guy expecting me to prove I had consensus? Given the recent Cold Fusion case regarding NPOV, sources, and not letting editors add any old personal view into articles, this was a shocking act by Guy. To top it off he has basically continually insulted me in the process (while having the brass neck to criticise my block log). MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to MickMacNee, I'd like to say that this concerns all three of you. As I stated in the opening post, Biscuittin has shown some positive response to my comments. However, that does not mean that his past editing history of the article will be overlooked. This case is about all three of you. I brought it here so that people who are more experienced than I am, and better able to deal with the situation than I can, have a chance to review the history of the article and take whatever action is deemed necessary to enable us to build a better encyclopedia - which should be the reason we are on Misplaced Pages in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading the various pages, I can understand MickMacNee's frustration, although quite frankly none of the three named editors come out of this looking good. However, the article is now locked down, disruption can't continue, and I suggest we pragmatically draw a line under the nonsense that's been going on.

Regarding the article content, ANI isn't really the place for discussing that. However, the only way to go has to be to stick to what can be reliably sourced. If the apparent naming controversy can be sourced too, including it in the article might be one way to get both viewpoints across. I notice User:Morven has made some very sensible suggestions on the talk page, and I'd strongly encourage the article editors to engage with these. EyeSerene 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages's administrators should not escape criticism either because they acted so slowly. If the article had been locked at an earlier stage then much of the edit warring (in which I took no part) would have been prevented. Biscuittin (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now THIS is the biggest load I have seen shoveled in a long time. Admins cannot watch every page at the same time. Unless someone does an RFPP (and even that has a delay), do not blame admins for your edit-warring or other actions. ♪BMWΔ 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee has, I think, shown exactly why his editing is a problem. It is pointless to assert that no sources have been provided which show that this is not the 50th in the class, since the claim that it is 50th in the class is plainly contentious and can be covered perfectly acceptably without implying its truth or falsehood by the simple and tested means of attribution. He wishes to assert the truth of what he believes and not recognise the validity of any dispute or the confusion which it might cause the reader.

The trust which built the loco intend it to be the 50th in the class, but in reality there is no active production of this class, it is a one-off reproduction just as the reproduction Tiger Moth aircraft are reproductions not part of the production run. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that enthusiasts intended it as the 50th in the class (probably noting in passing that they also say it is an evolution of the class to fix some of the original's problems, which rather undermines their point), but for Misplaced Pages to state that it is the 50th in the class opens the door to a load of issues. The infobox, for example, states that the Peppercorn A1 was manufactured 1948 - 1949 and 2008. Really? Is it really the case that there was a production run of one? Or is that a project not a production run? As far as I know, nothing survived from the original production run to the new one. Location, jigs, tooling, people, all were different. Even the drawings were amended, with major and minor changes to the design both to fix running problems and to comply with changed regulations. The debate about how true it is to type can go on for ever in the ouitside world, but for Misplaced Pages it's much better to step away from the assertions of steam fans (among which I include myself) and apply the usual Misplaced Pages fudge. It was a class of 49 locomotives built 1948-1949, with a new example intended as the 50th in class, built by enthusiasts in 2008. A truly remarkable achievement, but not in any way a resumption of production of this or any other main line steam locomotive, and it should not be represented as such. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

good bye

okay man, i've had it with you and wikipedia - i left, don't bother banning me but if you can't resist, then go ahead and bring it on! you guys gave me a hard time, i'm done with this shit. see ya! Jouke Bersma _{Contributions} 11:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of sweetums. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Over the last several days, Rtr10 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a series of personal attacks. I've repeatedly cautioned him on this issue, but the attacks continue apace. Before any of this began, he took the other side of the road in speaking to another user, where he said "No need for name calling here buddy". The attacks began on 11 December, and have continued since. On 11 December, I noted "If you can't keep your comments civil, then please do not post them". After his 23:15 12 December 2008 insult, I posted this response, where I warned him that further personal insults would be reported. This did not sway him. Rather the opposite. Instead, he stated that I "needed to learn the definition of insult" . Today, he posted another insult, saying "Your little game is not going to work here" . These attacks have not been constrained to me. Today, he attacked User:Betacommand saying "You should not be throwing around threats and ultimatums to other users. You aren't even an admin, so I don't know where you are getting the Holier than thou attitude" . Further, he has twice claimed that I do not contribute to the project: 07:50, 11 December 2008: "This particular user does not contribute any actual information to Misplaced Pages. Just does little nagging crap like this" 23:15, 12 December 2008: "I skimmed over your Contribution history and didn't see a single case in which you were actually contributing useful content to Misplaced Pages. Just little piss ant stuff like what you are trying to do here." Other generally hostile comments: 07:44, 11 December 2008: "Your are simply refusing to acknowledge it" (directed at User:Masem) 07:50, 11 December 2008: "Seems like they might be a little less anal about this stuff" {generally directed at those who feel fair use logos on team season pages are inappropriate). 18:04, 11 December 2008: "you have no clue about college football and really shouldn't be chiming in on the matter" and "Lord forbid you collect an informed opinion" (directed at User:Masem) 23:15 12 December 2008: "You have to be the most ignorant and disrespectful editor I have ever come across on wikipedia" (directed at User:Hammersoft). Further, this user has also contradicted himself in regards to his belief of my good intentions, and is in violation of WP:AGF. On 11 December, he said "While I don't doubt User:Hammersoft is bringing this up with good intentions," . Then on 12 December he says, "If you wanted to present yourself in good faith, which you have not at all" . He's well aware of the WP:AGF policy, as can be seen here where he says "I'd also like to refer you to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith". Yet, he chooses not to follow it. I understand this user has particular gripes with me. I've been insulted here numerous times before, including by administrators, and it really doesn't matter to me. However, his general hostility has been directed at editors in addition to myself. This latest set of incidents is not isolated. I've found evidence of hostility as far back as February of this year where he says "For you to single out Huckabee's page seems borderline vandalism" , in August of this year he says "for you to do anything and say it was "in good faith" is just a joke" I ask that an uninvolved administrator please step in and take action as they deem appropriate. Please note that the simple application of at {{uw-npa1}} (or higher) or {{uw-agf1}} would, I think, be inappropriate in this case. The editor in question is well aware of these policies. Perhaps a {{uw-npa4im}}? Also note that I have chosen to cease communicating with this user. I do not wish to in anyway encourage such insulting behavior by an editor. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I doubt admin action (i.e. blocking) is appropriate here; to me it justs like you and he had a good faith editing dispute and both of you started to get annoyed. None of that stuff, bar the last diff which is rather insulting, is that bad. As for assumption of bad faith, well I don't see any; I just see a disagreement that got heated. Suggest you just both calm down.--Patton123 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) As I noted, I don't care about his actions towards me. That's irrelevant to me. What concerns me is an ongoing stream of attacks across a history of his contributions that are directed at a number of editors. Someone other than myself needs to talk to him to correct this behavior on his part. I don't see a need to block him either. I do see a need to strongly warn him of continuing this behavior in abstract, towards anyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I concur (based on reading - it's close to being WP:TLDNR) that none of this is truly contrary to WP:NPA. ♪BMWΔ 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC) What? Ok. My question then is, if the above do not constitute a personal attacks, just what DOES constitute a personal attack? Would you prefer editors routinely go around insulting people as the above editor has done without any question of wrongdoing? Is that the Misplaced Pages we really want to have? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC) So far, the two editors who have responded above are not administrators. Would an administrator please look into this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Yes he wasn't very nice but he didn't mean it. A personal attack is "your stupid" – this was "your opinion is stupid" He was angry. One should never edit while angry but he did so lets please forget this.--Patton123 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Would an administrator please look into this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I concur with Bwilkins... who I honestly thought was an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not an admin, and I have to say I am finding it hard to see the comments you have highlighted above as a "continued stream of personal attacks". I'd recommend ignoring comments made by the user in question - or at least not responding to them if they occur in future. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Plenty of personal attacks there, but nothing outrageous. I get a lot worse without anyone caring. Those are todays standards, alas; Misplaced Pages merely reflects the world as a whole. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <forehead slap> Ok, so I guess it's ok to run around and call people the most ignorant and disrespectful editor, holier than thou, anal and clueless. Right. Off to have some fun then, (not)insulting my favorite editors, and I'll be sure to inform Rtr10 that his behavior should continue (Done), since it's not insulting and is perfectly acceptable. Thanks for the advice (and I'm placing the resolved tag), --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Ummm, do you understand the irony in adopting this "solution" and that this type of approach is precisely the kind of thing that poisons the atmosphere? You may wish to reconsider and maybe go withdraw your remarks at Rtr10's page. Be the better man and all that. Just an observation. Wiggy! (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not interested in playing nuance games trying to figure out what it and what is not an insult. I spent considerable time highlighting this editor's behavior above, and have been informed that I am in error. Since I am in error, I took the progressive step of informing Rtr10 about this thread and that the participants found his behavior to be acceptable. I've been educated here as to best practices, and understand now that insults are not insults, and I shouldn't worry about them whether they be directed at me, other editors, or if I make them myself. I appreciate the education, have taken the appropriate steps to ensure best practices, and thank you for your time. The thread is marked resolved. Let's leave it shall we and let the horse rest in peace? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) From the tone, you're just not getting it. That "progressive" step was hardly progressive at all. More like a parting shot. Genuine peace requires genuine goodwill, methinks. Wiggy! (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I see perhaps one genuinely incivil comment, but no personal attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, they're compliments, and perfectly inline with our best practices. I understand completely now. Thanks for educating me, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC) If the impolite communications deteriorate later, then please report it. However, there is no admin action that needs to be taken at this point, and hopefully this will be resolved in time. I also hope that you will not resort to pointy editing as you seem to have indicated at 20:28. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC) As other editors and administrators have noted, there is no inappropriate behavior. As such, there's nothing to report, and most likely will not be anything to report as I'm sure his behavior will be inline with best practices. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Reported to the town police and report has been generated. Bstone (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved – Go file RFCs or something else. This isn't going to do any good here.

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Unprotected, both editors warned. Kwami should not have protected the page, and would do well not to repeat that stunt. Little point in blocking either or both when edit-war finished 5 hours ago.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards