Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 31 July 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 admin 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

I have notified Raul654 (talk · contribs) and two other checkusers about this thread. I didn't contact him first because frankly I didn't think it would do much good, as I've expressed concerns about blocking patterns by Raul.

Raul has been blocking a simply ghastly amount of IPs in order to try to snuff out blocked Scibaby (talk · contribs). I've already expressed concern before that Raul is misusing his administrator tools with people he has a content dispute with (the thread was duly ignored: please note this does not include Scibaby, a sockpuppeteer). However, this blocking is simply above the pale; I don't have a checkuser tool, but I do see the several requests for unblock-auto affected by this every day, and I do have an IP range contribution tool which shows other editors on most of these ranges.

Range blocks include: /16:

1. 72.254.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
2. 207.67.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
3. 72.62.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
4. 68.27.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
5. 72.61.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
6. 198.172.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
7. 128.241.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
8. 72.58.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
9. 70.6.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
10. 205.212.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
11. 99.204.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
12. 99.203.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
13. 99.200.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
14. 66.215.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by Raul.
15. 68.26.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
16. 207.195.128.0/17 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
17. 66.215.64.0/18 - 1 year, AO ACB, ACB overturned.
18. 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
19. 209.59.48.0/20 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
20. 99.204.37.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
21. 72.62.103.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
22. 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
23. 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
24. 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
25. 71.196.216.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
26. 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB
27. 64.215.225.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
28. 207.67.151.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
29. 209.59.56.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
30. 207.195.244.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
31. 130.94.134.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
32. 128.241.107.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB

This is a lot of IP addresses, and it only includes the ones designed to get Scibaby (there are others that have been problems, such as 213.249.0.0/16 - 1 year, overturned by the Office).

I believe these IP ranges should be unblocked. WP:RBI works best when dealing with one banned editor, not hard blocking over a million IP addresses. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Concur This is quite a large block. I like to hear from Raul, but absent any comments, I think these should be removed. This is something not even IP block exemption can scale to relieve, at least that was not the intent of the policy when I proposed it. Yeah, these blocks need looked at. As an aside, Raul does some good work on the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum to above: All this for one sockpuppet? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Too much collateral damage, methinks. –xeno (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an impressive ammount of ranges, how come this was done for Scibaby AKA Obedium, when it hasn't been done for the puppeters with 200+ registered accounts and countless IP addresses? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious, what was the original block reason? –xeno (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have brought this kind of thing up before (as can be seen from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#Improper_block). From what I can tell, User:Obedium - sockmaster- was blocked because Raul determined he was POV pushing on a global warming article and blocked him (the only people Raul ever blocks are people who POV push against global warming and for intelligent design). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the answer to my question is: "Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV." –xeno (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I missed that in the block log. But I thought this was obvious given the nature of the case :). The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a quote from that thread you linked me to. –xeno (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul tends to prefer a ridiculous "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" approach, and apparently is intolerant of any criticism of it. Just a heads-up; I've had a run-in with him in the past over a similar issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time I ran into Raul's enthusiastic range blocking; and I see their effects at regular interval on unblock-l— there is such a thing as unacceptable collateral damage, and I think this has crossed that line. I would hope Raul would acknowledge the fact that he may have been a little overzealous and that he might want to ease up on the /16 blocks a bit. — Coren  22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

He won't, although he should. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Solutions

For this particular instance, is there a consensus, or can we discuss unblocking these specific ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to wait to hear from Raul what the reason for the blocks are. Some time ago when he detected increased scibaby activity he protected all the Global warming related articles. So, perhaps something similar is going on and he has tried a different tactic.

This is necessary to prevent the editors at Global Warming page from wasting their time reverting an Armada of scibaby socks. When that happens their editing pattern betray them and they are banned without doing a checkuser per WP:DUCK, and WP:Waste of Time as happened to User:Shenstar :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we could be turning away potentially valuable contributors with these rangeblocks, as evidenced by the numerous unblock-auto requests that come through. It seems we're making a trade-off of user time spent protecting a small set of articles and potentially losing valuable contributions to a larger set. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While some banned users are real pests and require drastic action to keep them off of the project, I wonder if these blocks are the best way. In my experience, banned users who have access to many IPs usually stop using an IP after it's been blocked, even if only for a short time. Unless he keeps returning to the same ranges perhaps shorter blocks would serve the same purpose while signifciantly reducing the collateral damage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful solution would be to desysop Raul. Unlike Bedford, Raul actually did something wrong--and so the community (and only the community) should endorse desysopping him. He's caused way too many problems. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, he is only causing problems for the global warming denial propagandists. Anyway, this is the previous case and my proposed solution, which admittedly is not so easy to implement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And the unfortunate souls who happen to use ISPs that are allocated IP addresses in that same range and who would like to contribute. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just ask for the block to be overturned? In these cases one could allow them to create an acount and then notify Raul about that created account so that the new editor can be monitored to see if it is not Scibaby slipping through the net. Count Iblis (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of hoops to make a potential good faith contributor jump through. I would gather a good number of them say "sod it" and are lost forever. That proposed solution sounds like it could benefit from the stable revision enhancement. –xeno (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Response?

Has anyone been able to contact him? Has he made edits since being notified, is he ignoring this? Email? Does anyone know his usual log on time? I think there shouldn't be any mass revet action taken until we hear from him. Unless he's ignoring this, than I say some further discussion is warranted immediately. Beam 01:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He most certainly has edited since; his last was just over an hour ago. I was looking at this earlier. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul doesn't usually edit wikipedia on Sunday. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tile join blocks

Just a note that Raul has also blocked large ranges of UK dynamic IPs when it would be simpler to just protect the articles that this one attacks. There are swathes of the most popular IPs blocked for 1 year, including BT, Tiscali and Sky. The thing is that even these rangeblocks are completely pointless, because short of blocking the entire ISP (tens of millions of addresses in some of these cases), one can just reboot the router and end up with a completely different IP anyway. I am on BT and my IP bounces between absolutely dozens of /16 blocks every time I switch off my PC and router. Examples;

• 81.153.64.0/18 (BT)
• 79.76.0.0/17 (Tiscali)
• 90.200.0.0/16 (Sky)

Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Half-cocked

Let's not go off half-cocked here. I just handled an unblock request from 207.195.224.0/19. There were only about 8 active IPs on that range, so I took a closer look. That range is owned by a hosting company. Hosting companies frequently host misconfigured web servers that act as open proxies and many hosting companies don't give a flying fig about the security position of their clients. Every IP on that range that has recent edits is an anonymous proxy, so I've reblocked the range with a different reason. Anyone who unblocks Raul's blocks without a damn thorough check and who thereby enables vandalism or socking is going to get a personal trout slap from me. Thatcher 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's reply

First, I'd like to start this out by noting that The Evil Spartan has a history of making false and/or misleading statements about my actions, based on either ignorance or a distorted understanding of them. He has apparently chosen to continue this trend here. Above, he says that Obedium was the sockpuppet master, and that I blocked him because I disagreed with him. This is false on several counts - Scibaby was the sockmaster - he was the first one discovered, based on a checkuser request , and was blocked by William M. Connelley. I had nothing to do with that particular block. Months later, I did block Obedium for vandalism, and a few days thereafter (following some checkuser queries) I changed the block reason to include being a scibaby sockpuppet. All of this is available in the Scibaby and Obedium block logs - had Evil Spartan bothered to check them. Apparently these thing are "obvious" to him, the actual facts of the case not withstanding. It's not the first time he's leveled that particular false claim either.

Now, about the range blocks -- The Spartan suggests that we Revert-Block-Ignore Scibaby's misbehavior. There are several problems with this approach - first, that it demonstrably doesn't work. He simply creates new accounts and comes back. It's been almost a year since he was first caught and blocked, but several hundred socks later, he shows no signs of stopping. The only method that has proven even half effective is to prevent him from registering new accounts. Second, constantly dealing with Scibaby's nonsense burns out the people who actually have to clean up the damage (Raymond Arrit quit over it). I'm sure it's easy for Evil Spartan to suggest that people RBI, given that he hasn't actually done a scintilla of work dealing with Scibaby. Those who do edit these articles, however, are quite clear in their desire to keep them Scibaby free. He wastes a great deal of time and effort from other contributors that could be better spent writing articles. Third, the ranges do not affect anyone with an account. People who do not have accounts can contact unblock-en-l and ask for one. Fourth, the ranges above were not blocked willy-nilly. I avoid blocking highly active ranges - if a /16 is active, I block the /24. Thatcher has already noted this elsewhere in this thread.

To reply to Will Beback - I started instituting year-long range blocks in place in or around February. (After shorter ones failed to stop Scibaby) He still hasn't stopped. Therefore, if after 6 months of consistent range blocks he's still coming back, it stands to reason that shorter blocks will not stop him either.

And lastly - I'm not even going to get into how ludicrous Kurt's comments are. Anyone who's seen his participation elsewhere on Misplaced Pages should have a pretty good idea of the soundness of his judgment. But to rebut one thing he said, he claimed (falsely) that I edited an hour before he did - several hours after I got Spartan's notice on my talk page. Apparently Kurt has issues reading dates and times. My last edit prior to this one was a full 20 hours before I got The Spartan's note on my talk page, not (as Kurt said) an hour before his edit at 01:32, 28 July 2008. Raul654 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are several hardblocks, could they be tweaked to anon-only? –xeno (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Use of carefully applied, anon-only range blocks to help control this level of disruption is fully justified. Volunteer burn-out is a serious issue when dealing with serial sockpuppeteers, and it's dismaying to see those who aren't actually dealing with the sockpuppeter giving back-seat advice on what would actually work to those who are dealing with it. Jayjg 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If the options are spend all our time cleaning up after jerks, or just quitting and doing better things with our time, because we can't take serious measures to stop said jerks, I think it's obvious what most people will be doing. ThuranX (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Based on Rauls experience, and vested nature into the project, I'm inclined to give Raul the benefit here. The rationale sure makes sense. I apologize Raul. Continue the work you do. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the fact that people/IPs can request to be unblocked is enough to determine that this did not belong on AN/I, as this is a topic that does not deserve to have anyone waste their time on, let alone should Raul, with his constant dedication and experience here, be questioned in such a strange way. Can't this be closed and killed already? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have the hardblocks been tweaked yet? –xeno (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is requesting unblock for any of those IPs to create an account, why would it matter? Misplaced Pages acts preventively, and so far this has been effectively preventive. Your concern seems unwarranted and would not stop the socks from being created. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. Tweaking the blocks to anon-only would stop us having to create a new account and hand it IP block exempt at the same time. –xeno (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. " Then that shows that they are perfectly capable of doing so, and the system works. Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So we should hand a brand new account an IP block exempt flag? Would be much safer to soften the block. –xeno (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a little confusing - There is a person making sock puppets. He relies on constantly shifting ips and making new accounts on a standard basis, which allows him to use the socks later. The only way to stop this is to stop the ability to create new accounts. It is not IP postings that are a danger, but sock puppet accounts. By having the people have to physical request an unblock to make an account, or permission to make an account, it prevents this automatic account creation to work, or slows down the process. Soft blocking wouldn't achieve this desired affect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps so am I, because I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. A few of those rangeblocks aren't set to "anon only". Thus even if we created an account for them, they wouldn't be able to edit (unless given the IP block exempt flag, something that isn't handed out without a good reason). Now if there is 1) a good reason for those ranges to be hard blocked or 2) an understanding that giving out an IP block exempt flag to edit through these hard blocks, then I guess there's no issue with them being hardblocks. if not, they need to be softened to "anon only". (keep the ACB). –xeno (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, and perhaps so am I, because I don't think you understand what I'm driving at. A few of those rangeblocks aren't set to "anon only"." Actually, I addressed that above. We are trying to stop socks. Some of them are already created. To slow him down, he would need to request to unblock each. To make new socks, he would need to request to be unblocked. Chances are, he could be caught before he is unblocked. Understand how this is the only way now? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So why are only a handful hardblocked? And, should I start handing out IP block exempt flags to brand new accounts that request it from those hard blocked ranges? P.S. I'd prefer a reply from Raul, as perhaps they are hard blocked for a good reason ( I did notice one of them mentioned it was a whole range of misconfigured web servers that acted as open proxies - is this the case for all of them?) –xeno (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ok, so should I start handing out IP block exempt flags to brand new accounts that request it from those hard blocked ranges? " Most certainly not. They should be forced to explain some of who they are or other such things to make sure that its not a copy and paste job. Otherwise, it would be just as flimsy as letting him have free access to create. If they are current names, their background needs to be checked to see if there is overlap and a history that connects them to the puppet master. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock-auto request comes from hard blocked range. I offer to create them an account, providing my standard boilerplate text which can be seen at User:Xenocidic/misc in the collapsed frequently used wikitext (I stole it from another admin). email comes from someguy at somewebmailhost dot com. "create me an account please". so I create them an account, and hand them IP block exempt? that doesn't seem like a best practice to me. neither does forcing someone to explain some of who they are (what ever happened to anonymity?), just because they happen to be in one of these ranges. and again, I'd prefer a reply from Raul, for reasons mentioned above. –xeno (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will let Raul answer for himself, and I will have this be my final say on the matter - This happens quite often and is standard procedure when people have their IP and account blocked, and that IP rotates to someone else. It is hard knowing if the new person is actually a new person, or if the previous user is trying to game the system. Such extremes are taken because they are necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

These aren't IP blocks, they're IP range blocks. Feel free to reply, I've decided just to ask him directly. –xeno (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the ranged blocked for socks. So, yeah. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Raul. — Coren  03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break after raul's reply

You guys are missing the point. It isn't that an ip couldn't request an unblock, it's that an actual new editor, the most valuable resource in all of the lands of the 'pedai we hold so dear, might not know what a template is, or even where the { symbol is on their keybaord. And when they realize they are actually blocked, they're already gone. Beam 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's turning away new editors. As an editor whose ip (from one of the places I regularly edit from) falls into one of the blocked scibaby ranges, I can attest to the fact that I'm unaffected by the block once I log in. I'm not aware of what particular disruption scibaby has caused, but I do know that a disruptive sock farmer can cause frustration enough to inspire an exodus of existing volunteers, so it makes sense to take aggressive measures to halt the disruption in order to not lose valuable editors. There's enough information on the block message that comes up for a potential new editor who hasn't created an account yet to contact the blocking admin to ask for help to proceed--I know there was enough info for me to email Raul the first time I got hit with the scibaby block message just to let him know the block was hitting a regular editor's ip. I don't see any real negative effects caused by these blocks, especially if it's effective in stopping the disruption. --MPerel 05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Raul's range blocks, and I want to note for the record that Raymond Arrit isn't the only editor who has been damaged by scibaby. For some strange reason that I have yet to figure out, an administrator named Madman decided to block me for 48 hours for helping to revert the damage caused by one of scibaby's accounts in September 2007. Madman claimed that I had violated the 3RR (no such violation occurred), was being disruptive (helping to revert SPA is not disruptive), and that I was edit warring (edit warring with a banned user?). NonvocalScream (then called "Navou") and Nishkid64 supported the block. It would be nice if administrators would actually do their homework before using the tools. Blocking the correct account is somewhat important here. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your editing was disruptive, lets not get twisted over 2RR versus 3RR. :| NonvocalScream (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing disruptive about reverting a scibaby account in September 2007, and there continues to be nothing disruptive about reverting their edits now. It appears that you don't understand the word "disruptive" as it used on Misplaced Pages, and I suggest you actually read WP:DISRUPT. You supported a bad block, and sadly enough, you have not learned from your mistake. If you are at all interested in correcting your error, you are welcome to take a look at this page and scroll down to 02:31, 25 September 2007 and below. It's pretty clear who is being disruptive here, and it's not me. Amazingly, User:Obedium was allowed to continue to edit until 28 November 2007 when he should have been blocked in September. Instead, you chose to support blocking me. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a ridiculously inappropriate block, I remember that now. All the more reason to be aggressive blocking abusive SPAs. The collateral damage to a highly productive top 100 editor like Viriditas is case in point that an SPA permitted to run amok is far more damaging to existing editors than an ip block that might possibly discourage a potential new account in the SPA's ip range. --MPerel 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me. It doesn't appear the blocks are working, since Raul deems it necessary to continue blocking vast numbers of IP addresses. If Scibaby continues indefinitely, does that mean ranges will continue to be blocked as a consequence, obstructing and potentially deterring other users from participation? Isn't there a certain point at which the collateral damage exceeds what is acceptable in attempting to prevent one person from making easily-reverted POV edits? Also, has semi-protection been tried? Wouldn't that be a much simpler solution? Everyking (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Scibaby creates multiple accounts at staggered intervals, so any attempt at SP results in a sleeper account coming out of the sock drawer. He recently attempted to do this with his last account, and he did it in full view while registered from another account. This is what sets him apart from other accounts; take a look at some examples where he creates one account after another: , , , , , , , and many more. Take a look at this one where he uses one account to create two. It's easy to break the the day/edit threshold by creating a new account every x days and making y number of edits. The solution is to block on sight, and since the modus operandi is obvious (same type of edits, almost no use of talk pages), this should be easy. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul is right; I am in error as to whether he edited. I made that comment on the 27th, but I was thinking it was the 26th (which at the time was also the date of the last edits he had made). I often am one or two days off on the day of the month, so that was an error on my part.

That doesn't change the fact that his method is wholly unjustified. Saying "Unless you're the one dealing with it, don't criticize those who are" is hardly a compelling argument; I do not need to be an NFL quarterback to recognize when Joey Harrington is stinking it up, nor do I need to be a businessman to recognize when a company is going under. The "collateral damage" caused by Raul's actions is, in my view, an unacceptable tradeoff. It's as simple as that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know how much collateral damage these blocks are creating, nor do you have any idea how effective they are at preventing Scibaby from creating new accounts. You are simply taking wild guesses based on no evidence or understanding of the problem whatsoever (which is what the arbcom sanctioned Everyking for, now that I think about it). Raul654 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmph. If people were prohibited from commenting at AN/I just because they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, you could hear a pin drop in this mofo. MastCell  05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If Kurt Weber has an alternative solution, I would like to hear it. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why present alternative solutions when it's so much easier to say "Let's give up and let Scibaby do what he wants." It doesn't require learning anything about the problem (something that neither Spartan nor Kurt thought necessary before commenting here). Better yet, one can blather on about it while not doing any useful work (Kurt's specialty). Raul654 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That some people understand how to get around these blocks for good purposes does not mean that everybody does. The need to be accessible to newbies is at the very heart of WPs survival and growth. Raul, didn't you say above that even the current blocks weren't being effective? If so, why leave them up? DGG (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I said the blocks are half-effective - they don't prevent him entirely from editing Misplaced Pages, but they have had a demonstrable effect of slowing him down. He used to have dozens of outstanding sockpuppets at any given moment; now he has far fewer and they don't last nearly as long. Raul654 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You, frankly, have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that I have no evidence behind my claims. Frankly, I submit that I'm vastly more informed about this issue than you are. And I find it ironic that you claim I do no "useful work", when I have done much more for Misplaced Pages than you ever have or ever will. "Not doing any useful work"...ha! Do you know anything about what I do here? Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion (you won't, since it's blatantly false, as a quick check will show). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still agree that we may be doing more damage than good with these rangeblocks. A few people manage to figure out how to throw up unblock templates, and I regrettably have to decline them, instead offering to create them an account, but rarely ever receive that email from them. Potential contributors, lost forever? There must be another way. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In this day and age, where can you post something on the internet (say a forum, on a blog, etc.) without at least giving your email address, or, more typically, by registering? I know of very few sites where you can still do this. What maters is that everyone who is really motivated to participate in editing won't find it too cumbersome to get an account here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were going to once again accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about. I see you opted to do so indirectly. Everyking (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I see it, we have two solutions: end the range blocks, and effectively make it impossible to prevent the socks from being created, which makes the blocking policy a complete laughing stock, or keep the blocks in place and potentially alienate new people while needing to burn more IPs in order to prevent this sock from acting in the way he is doing. Either way, the options suck. However, partisans are becoming far too much of that and forgetting that the blocks are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. What doesn't help the encyclopedia is this bitter fighting. Can we please tone down the language? Everyone here wants to help the encyclopedia, and Scibaby is winning if admin are busy fighting amongst themselves. Thats exactly what he wants. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this problem is limited to the few global warming related pages, we could think about being selective in this respect. Is it possible to automatically block newly created accounts from certain IP ranges to contribute to a small list of articles? Count Iblis (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Wilhelmina Will's no holds barred DYK race -- I propose a temporary ban for her

User:Wilhelmina Will has resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries, for which she has been warned on her talk page, and to reverting substantive edits in articles in order to obtain the correct number of words for DYK.

Apparently she feels so secure in doing this that she is willing to admit that is her sole purpose for reverting. I posted before on AN/I about her plagiarizing articles, and talked to her about it, but she did not respond other than to warn me away from her and admit she didn't understand what she had copied.

This editors reason for being at Misplaced Pages appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace).

Based on this I have asked that the Mesodermochelys article be removed from candidates for DYK.

She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

Is this what Misplaced Pages should be featuring on its main page? I don't think so. I think the main page needs a break from Wilhelminia. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the DYK criteria are much stricter than the criteria for inclusion, an editor whose entire purpose is to create articles for DYK and rack up "medals" wouldn't seem to be bad on face. I can't speak to the specific problems this editor is generating but the underlying act should not be suspect in any way. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Willing to edit war, revert edits that increased accuracy and clarity in order to have the right number of words, and calling another editor "revolting" are fine by you if used for DYK, then? Ugh. --Blechnic (talk)

(ec) Oh please, Protonk, you seriously think that adding pointless verbiage to an article just to jack up its word count for DYK (which she admits doing - follow Blechnic's links) is serious, useful, appropriate editing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know anything about the specific actions the editor in question has done. I'm just contending the general premise of this statement "This editors reason for being at Misplaced Pages appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace)...She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award." Protonk (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

She certainly did edit war for the purpose of the number of words for DYK: "My reason is to keep the main body of this article above 1500 bytes. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

then the problem is the edit warring, not the motivation. the solution (DYK topic ban) is a unique and probably helpful one. I'm just defending the notion that an editor may edit to only contribute to DYK. If we had a (hypothetical) editor that did so without introducing factual innacuriacies, without edit warring and without plagarising, we would lavish them with praise. the underlying motive isn't the problem here, though it is probably key to the solution. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps something like a topic ban? No further DYK submissions from Wilhelmina until the community decides to lift the ban? If that's all she's here for, she's not doing the encyclopedia any favors. (Disclaimer: I have not evaluated Blechnic's post on the merits, but if his factual claims are accurate - which I have no reason to doubt - some kind of a circuit breaker ought to be tripped) (Another disclaimer:I am not an admin) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I suggest, no DYK submissions or credits for Wilhelmina. I'm more concerned now, after working on this latest article, about her accuracy. She clearly does not understand extinct organisms--what she is currently writing about. --Blechnic (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps the stated DYK criteria are stricter than the criteria for inclusion, but in practice, an editor can plagiarize an article from another source and have it included in DYK--then we have a big fat copyvio linked from the main page. Wilhelmina Will's behavior is sufficiently problematic that I think she (?) should be given a temporary time-out from DYK--there are credible concerns of plagiarism, and the personal attacks aren't helping. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame - there are oodles of straightforward stubs (especially in geography and botnay) just itching to be expanded out there without having to get mired in technical detail. I note Fritzpoll has offered to mentor, which may be constructive (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any kind of ban is the answer. Wilhelmina, though a little unorthodox, is a quality contributor; we should not be persecuting her for adding new content. Further, I see little difference in the diffs you've presented, Blechnic; there is no need to go searching for a conflict merely because you dislike a user. I see no inherent problem with trying to get a lot of DYK medals; the end result is lots of high-quality articles for the project. GlassCobra 05:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dislike or like her. Her contributions are not quality, most I've seen are copyvios or wrong. Her science is really bad. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was no reason to revert just to get the article up to the correct size. More can be added to the article, if that's the only DYK concern. The personal attacks while reverting to the ever-so-slightly longer version are problematic. Not to mention the factual accuracy of DYKs "extended" in this manner. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra, follow Blechnic's links, look at her edit summaries and talk page comments. Wilhelmina clearly admits that she's making changes for the sole purpose of jacking up the article's word count just to fulfill her "dream of having made 5000 DYK articles". That is just not on. A DYK ban is the least disruptive way of dealing with this. She could still edit the rest of the encyclopedia to her heart's content, but her incentive to commit copyvio's and insert useless verbiage would be gone. And the ban could be lifted as soon as she sees the light about her conduct. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the history of Mesodermochelys, I agree that there are problems with Wilhelmina Will's conduct. But can someone point me to a diff illustrating the copyvio/plagiarism issues that people are talking about above?  Sandstein  05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was another AN/I, not this one. She copied a few phrases for this that should be, in my opinion, in quotes, but the article has mostly been entirely rewritten at this stage. I'll see if I can find a link to the other AN/I.--Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to at least most of the discussion. I think her latest response to this AN/I thread will pretty much say it all, along with her calling me a "revolting" editor in her edit summaries while reverting substantive edits to keep the number of words high enough for DYK. She didn't respond to the first AN/I, and her initial response to me expressing concern about her copyvios, as I noted above, was to warn me to never "cross paths with her again." --Blechnic (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start a tally, then:

• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Until editor gets her act together and accuracy is part of it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Based not only on the attacks in the edit summaries, but even moreso the reversions to simply keep it at the right technical length (versus actually improving the article), I support a decent-length topic ban from DYK for WW. S. Dean Jameson 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per Dean Jameson's reasons (personal attacks in edit summaries, accuracy issues, edit wars based on article length for DYK), I think I'd also support a temporary DYK ban for WW. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina until she clearly starts producing accurate quality articles and shows more civility. (I also think that DYK encourages this sort of thing, earlier this year I found and dealt with multiple issues of copyvio from an editor collecting DYKs). Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Mesodermochelys isn't the only palaeo article created by her that has been a problem. I've made to make major changes to Mystriosuchus and Corsochelys to make them in anyway accurate. In addition, many of the palaeo articles created by her lack any information altogether (see her sea turtle creations). She seems to be trying to increase the number of articles out of the article request process, which is commendable; however all her palaeo article either are lacking in information or have serious accuracy issues and some copyvios. Mark t young (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here, it seems to be you, Blechnic. Just stop it, okay? Sceptre 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, it seems that Wilhelmina Will may have been brought up on AN/I more than the twice I brought her up ("everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here" implies a larger number than two including this one). However, I did not bring her up these other times she was brought up here at AN/I. --Blechnic (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think Blechnic deserves great credit for persistence in refusing to let an unpleasant problem be swept under the carpet. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with JohnCD.ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --CrohnieGal 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the short term per Mark T. Young, taking his owrd (and others) on copyvios and inaccurate material. I wonder if the situation could be saved by close monitoring and am opne to the idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support both a DYK ban and a possible overall short term block. As someone who has a few DYKs under the belt, her actions to attempt to rack up more is not only insulting to other DYK editors, but shows a complete lack of full respect for the rules regarding a DYK. In the last AN/I thread, I was ready to give Wilhelmina the benefit of the doubt, but the continuing on going problems and her responses to these issues make me feel that something more needs to be done here. I was suprised the last thread did not result in a block as she seemed to be ignoring all comments and the offer of mentoring to help correct a major issue with the use of copyrighted material, posting of blatantly false information, and the use of herself as a source. -- ] (] · ]) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, both a DYK ban, for a couple of months, and a short block for civility violations. Editing Misplaced Pages should be about improving the encyclopedia, not collecting awards. When someone edits an article with an edit summary indicating that the goal of the edit is simply to increase the word count to the DYK minimum rather than to improve content, this clearly demonstrates problematic and unproductive attitude both to DYK and to Misplaced Pages in general. Also, the edit summaries in the first two diffs provided by Blechnic are really unacceptable. There is no excuse for deliberately insulting other editors and the fact that the sole purpuse of WW's edits, according to those edit summaries, was to insult Blechnic, makes it even worse. I would think that a short civility block for WW is warranted just for that. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban as proposed, plus mentoring/adoption if anyone is willing - I seem to remember that someone offered, but I can no longer find that on her talk page. We need to find out whether this editor's undoubted energy and enthusiasm can be channelled towards helping to build an accurate encyclopedia, rather than accumulating number-of-articles-created points and DYK credits. (In view of the amount of trouble it seems to be causing, I wonder whether the whole DYK system is maybe more of a hindrance than a help to WP?) JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support; DYK are not an ends, and savaging articles to make them qualify, quality be damned, is not acceptable. — Coren  17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support civility block, not just topic ban. This bald-faced lie in regards to the personal attack diffs provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK topic ban and civility block. Plagarism is unacceptable, as are personal attacks. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• SupportDYK Topic Ban and Civility Block, and civility and plagarism probations. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support If Blechnic, in return, is warned over lack of AGF ("This editors reason for being at Misplaced Pages appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals") and told to stop making personal attacks ("The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately."). These actions are not beneficial to an encyclopedia, and instead harmful. These actions are escalating actions and result in further problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those don't look like personal attacks to me, but straightforward reporting of the user's behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Corvus, you cannot have a more clearer situation of a personal attack than saying someone lacks the ability to read accurately. That is clearly an attack on their person. Remember, NPA states at the top: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This was a clear breach. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair OR, that is an oversimplification of what Blechnic said - assuming good faith, we can assume that Blechnic was not saying she couldn't read, but couldn't understand the technical details of scientific journals. Not an uncommon problem, even for researchers in the field! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If I oversimplified "inability to read", then I apologize. However, the language seems to be inappropriate, and this could have been solved by a simple redaction to say there have been problems resulting from her edits that remove the scientific accuracy, instead of blaming her "ability" as the root cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While there may be a case for warning Blechnic, I fail to see why the decision about Wilhelmina Will should be conditioned on some warning to Blechnic. —SlamDiego_←T 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Because Misplaced Pages is about preventative, not punitive, and personal attacks cause discontent between users, which will spiral the problem further out of control. The response to incivility is not to be incivil. We need to state the facts of the case, not discuss the attributes of others, and be as objective as possible. Otherwise, problems escalate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing against a warning for Blechnic. (I have not formed an opinion on that.) I'm asking for why the response to Wilhelmina Will should be conditioned on warning Blechnic. If we simply couldn't communicate with Blechnic (and thus could not make a warning), should we let Wilhelmina Will continue? —SlamDiego_←T 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah. It just seems like the situation happens around those two interacting, so the solution would have to be based on their mutual interactions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose any sanctions against Blechnic. That Ottava Rima is agitating so loudly in Wilhelmina WIll's favor, to the point of now creating two separate disruptive off-topic threads is absurd, and I ask that she be warned by an admin, and any further distracting sub-threads be 'rewarded' with a block for disruption of an AN/I thread. It's clear that Ottava is willing to risk his/her reputation, such as it is, to save WW, which is not going to work. As such, the warning would not only be to keep this AN/I focused but to prevent OR from his/her own worst impulses. ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx, your comments show short sighteness when it comes to fixing the topic, and ignore the fact that I've dealt with mediation between users quite often, have an extensive background in the DYK topic area, and that I already recommended WW be prevented in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK ban until she gives reason to believe that she will adhere to the spirit of DYK when submitting. That would mean no copyvios (taking Mark T Young's word, which I have found to be reliable in the past) and meeting the minimum DYK requirements legitimately, withiut playing games. I can understand the frustration of falling a few words short and thus rewording things to use a few extra characters and being reverted, but there should be a better way to extend an article that needs extention. Rlendog (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off track with all the arguing. There is clear consensus for a preventative DYK ban. However, we need something constructive to assist her with editing articles based upon academic citations. Can I suggest that mentoring is a condition of her DYK ban being recended? Mark t young (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be absolutely necessary. I have already made an attempt to talk to her. Based on her response, we will find out if such a thing is possible on her end. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note - this was posted and there appears to be two DYK regulars who suggest opposes to the above in some form or the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The only two "suggested opposes" at DYK are me and Bedford, who raised an alternative to a ban that I agreed to support should WW follow up on it. I will always support anything short of a ban, particularly if the user facing the ban shows an inclination towards working for an alternative solution. That seems pretty straight-forward. However, Will has not shown any inclination to anything but continuing to created bad and wrong articles and edit according to her personal desires rather than accuracy.
  • Also DYK users have a link to this discussion and explicit notice of the nature of this discussion should they choose to come here and participate. It is not necessary for anyone to suggest their voices. Did you post a note at Bedford's talk page to let him know you were speaking here for him here at AN/I, thouhg? Thank you, also, Ottava Rima, for speaking for me, but I have clearly spoken for myself above. Please do not speak for me. --Blechnic (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • PS I did let User:Bedford know that you spoke for him here, as you have not notified him, according to your user talk contributions history. --Blechnic (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The only two "suggested opposes" at DYK are me and Bedford" it sure seems like you were opposed in your excessive pursual of this and the extreme lengths you are taking: "I think it is a little excessive. I suggest possibly cooling down a bit. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)". So far, there have been quite a few people questioning your eagerness. Now, you definitely aren't helping your case by acting condescending. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic is acting "condescending"? I have to say, tu quoque... S. Dean Jameson 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that she could no longer self-nom until five of her articles were nominated by others,and later placed on the front page. ANI has proven unreliable, and instead of a mass lynching, it is best if those most knowledgeable about DYK practices meet out a reasonable and fair punishment that does not discourage creativity, but does encourage competent prose.--Bedford 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN doesn't just apply to articles, you know -- or are you suggesting that "outsiders" are incapable of making judgments based on the available evidence? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominations are not limited to regulars in DYK, anyone can nominate. It was my suggestion, originally, that editors at DYK also discuss a solution, simply because editors at DYK and editors monitoring DYK are the DYK community. There is no door keeping anyone else out, though. The post is linked above, feel free to drop by and contribute to a solution if you like. --Blechnic (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from DYK for a little while. Right now the concerns of plagiarism and the associated drama have reached the point where her continued participation at DYK is harmful. Vickser (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review: protection of John Edwards

{{Resolved}} I've just protected John Edwards for 48 hours. In addition to a fairly pronounced edit war involving multiple parties, there was what I consider to be a significant WP:BLP issue which led me to protect a specific version. Hence I'm submitting the action here for review.

Background: the National Enquirer, a tabloid, recently alleged infidelity on Edwards' part, an allegation which he has denied. Thus far, a number of reputable media organizations are covering the brouhaha over these allegations, though they have taken care to avoid comment on the veracity of the allegations themselves, which appear to be confined only to the Enquirer. There has been a dispute/edit war at John Edwards over both whether the allegations should be included, and if so, how the material should be phrased.

I've left a lengthy rationale on the Edwards talk page for the 48-hour protection and reversion. The protection itself is justified by the edit-war, but the protection of a specific version is always controversial. To summarize: the essence of WP:BLP is that Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid; that we are not Wikinews and getting these issues right takes precedence over getting them in the article right now; that the mainstream sources covering this issue are themselves seemingly skeptical or iffy about the allegations; and that while this material may certainly warrant inclusion, the dispute over the material needs to take place on the talk page, not in the form of edit-warring in articlespace.

Potentially relevant WP:BLP/N thread here, though input was fairly limited.

I'm posting this for feedback and a sanity check from uninvolved editors and admins. Also, as a minor administrative issue: should this be logged as a special enforcement action under the provisions of WP:BLPBAN? I'm hesitant to be the "test case" there, but I believe this protection/reversion are in keeping with that decision. MastCell  17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On the least important point, I'd only log it under WP:BLPBAN if you are intentionally using that as the basis for your action. GRBerry 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd looked earlier at the talk page, in response to a thread above. Nothing relevant has been said since, yet the edit warring continued. The edit warring in and of itself merited protection, regardless of the BLP issue. It seems reasonable to have removed the paragraph also under WP:BLP. The final version before protection was arguably worse than the version being revert warred over. Hopefully in 48 hours there will be additional evidence relevant to determining the appropriate amount of coverage. I'd consider extending the protection to a week however, with a note on the talk page to use {{editprotected}} if an actual consensus version has emerged. GRBerry 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was initially thinking of 3-5 days, but thought I'd err on the side of less protection. I agree about extending it if the same issues persist. I suspect that at the moment Reliable Sources(TM) have their fact-checkers and legal department working on the matter, and the appropriate level, tone, sourcing, etc should hopefully clarify itself shortly. MastCell  18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this recent addition to Story of My Life (novel) by 216.136.25.72. It has twice been re-added since its removal - once by 216.136.25.72, and again by 72.72.203.224. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell  18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean fully protected? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Story of My Life (novel), the questionable material had been inserted solely by IP's, so I've only semiprotected it at this point. MastCell  19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I confused the two. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think protection was the right move based on the edit warring while discussion was taking place. As for inclusion, I think it is possible to include only what the sources say, that the NE reports A but that it remains unsubstantiated. Ramsquire 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The protection is called for, but I think an admin needs to take the time to synthesize data on this scandal and edit the article, even while under the protection, to mention the scandal (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression admins can still edit protected pages). At this point, the scandal has been reported in Fox News (here), and dozens of national and international newspapers. The Fox News article contains sourcing independent of the National Enquirer. To allow the pre-scandal version of the page to stand in the midst of a growing media storm is to deny reality, and bring discredit upon Misplaced Pages. Regrettably, this protection is now making Misplaced Pages the subject of controversy. RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, though it's strange without context. How's this at the end of John_Edwards#2008_Presidential_campaign? Edwards' chance of becoming Obama's running mate has likely been dashed by undenied July 2008 allegations published by the National Enquirer..--chaser - t 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is a Democrat being a two-timer considered to be news? Now, a Mormon Senator caught messing around in the restroom - that's news. Baseball Bugs 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot synthesize content information to resolve a dispute; an admin's opinion on a specific content dispute is no weightier than anyone else's, though admins may act to deal with edit-warring, WP:BLP issues, and other policy problems. While admins have the technical ability to edit protected pages, it would be a gross abuse to do so except in narrowly constrained circumstances (see the protection policy). This will have to be solved the good old-fashioned way - by discussion on the article talk pages.

Incidentally, I would strongly encouage outside input on the relevant talk page, since this is a thorny content issue without a clear "right" answer (though there are many, many wrong ones). Bottom lines: Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. There is no deadline; it's more important to get this right rather than to race to repeat unconfirmed rumors. Outside criticism should not be ignored, but being criticized doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing something wrong. Sometimes, depending on the source, it's a sign that you're doing something right. MastCell  17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages welcomes outside input. That contrasts with the tabloids, which welcome inside output. Baseball Bugs 23:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need to contain a frantic edit war between the warring ideologues from both parties, but the section should be added as "alleged" event. It's been picked up by multiple legitimate news agencies with independent sources.

Comparing this to Senator Craig, or using it as an excuse to dismiss the alleged Edwards scandal by the admins is a joke. Senator Craig's events were performed in front of an undercover officer, who testified as to the events that took place, and Craig admitted to the allegations. Hence, it is NOT alleged. It is fact.

The Edwards situation has received enough mainstream media attention to warrant a section documenting "alleged" or as of yet unresolved events. If or when the events are proven/disproven, the section can be ammended to reflect those changes.

But unless there is an official moratorium on events before they can be added to wikipedia, selective censorship is counterproductive to the wiki community. There are undeniable facts that 1.) SOMETHING took place, 2.) Edwards was present, 3.) all of the witness reports and evidence (from sources outside of The Enquirer), point to the idea that it was an affair or rendezvous.

Either set a timetable for how long an event must sit in purgatory before being added as "alleged" and how many sources and news outlets have to have reported it, or make the changes.

Make rules and enforce them, or adopt a laissez faire attitude. You can't arbitrarily enforce edit and posting rules

Either deal in fact and theory, or only fact. But you can't selectively remove theory. And that applies to everything.69.81.18.5 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.18.5 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2008

FYI: redacted link that apparently everyone but me already knew about --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - we already have a handful of IP's and new accounts dedicated to spamming that piece on the article talk page. MastCell  18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't really been following it. I was just surprised to see Misplaced Pages mentioned as the second link when I gnewsed for "John Edwards". I have redacted the link, since apparently everyone but me already knew about it :D --Jaysweet (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has formed on the article talk page on how to address this issue within the article, which I have updated accordingly. I think this thread can be marked as resolved.  Sandstein  07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue. Consensus is not the determining factor here. We have a single-sourced allegation from a questionable source. Not good. --jpgordon 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. This is a community issue, therefore consensus is always appropriate. Good! --Dragon695 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. BLP, like NPOV, trumps any consensus arguments. BLP violations may be removed regardless of consensus. --jpgordon 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

True. Adding the "Enquirer" allegations as such to the article would violate BLP, which would be a matter beyond consensus. However, the content now at issue is based on articles by British mainstream newspapers concerning the possible impact of the allegations on Edwards' career. That does not, as far as I can tell, violate BLP, because it is based on reliable sources, and leaves open the question of the validity of the allegations themselves. Its inclusion may or may not violate WP:NPOV, good editorial judgment, etc., but that is a matter for consensus to decide.  Sandstein  06:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the article back to semi-protection again, due to a 100% BLP violation or vandalism rate by IP editors or new accounts during the 10 hours it was fully unprotected. As I also reverted some of those edits today, I'm letting the community review my semi-protection. We haven't had any edit warring over this material by autoconfirmed editors in that period. GRBerry 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day

I've been taking flack for blocking User:Frederick day as a sock of indef blocked User:Fredrick day then reverting all his edits as a banned user. The thing is, is he banned? I said yes considering the length of time since his block, the fact he's created socks to evade that block and no admin has so forward as being willing to unblock. Others may disagree though so I'd appreciate comments on whether or not he's banned. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone is free to revert my revert of any edits that are perceived constructive - you'll obviously take responsibility for the edit, but it's no big deal IMO. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor is banned, de facto, by virtue of being indefinitely blocked with no administrator willing to unblock. In the past, there has been dispute over whether a single admin was sufficient to reverse that presumption— but this does not appear to be the case for User:Fredrick day. As far as I'm concerned, this is a banned user and the block-revert of his sock is exactly correct. — Coren  00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the banning policy - a defacto ban ONLY exists as long as noone is willing to overturn - if soemone is, then the defacto ban cannot exist. A community ban needs consensus to be overturned, not a lone voice(just clearing things up for everyone). Viridae 06:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd keep his contributions reverted for now, as per WP:BAN. —Mizu onna sango15 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the user being blocked, though I dunno about edit reversion or if he's formally banned. I mean, I certainly wouldn't unblock him, though it seems that this incarnation's edits weren't all bad. If there's support for a ban I'll add it in myself, though I'm looking through the edits now to see if there are any that are really needed to remain, but for now I'll hold off. Wizardman 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, revert any that you wish - you take responsibility for the edit, but if they're constructive, there's no problems at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of who was criticizing your action? It seems to be exactly appropriate and precisely following all guidelines on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one. I don't want to make a big deal about it, but finding someone reverting your talk page in order to remove an innocuous comment by another editor, without explanation, is rather disconcerting and looks like vandalism. If I hadn't gone looking for this report here I wouldn't have any idea what was going on. --Escape Orbit 09:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had posted, a short while ago, a notice here about Fredrick day. Frederick day helpfully moved it to an existing discussion (where he also acknowledged being Fredrick day), and where it may have been a bit buried. I'll remember that trick if I ever need to cover something up. As to reverting all the edits as a banned user, my major complaint about that would be that Ryan's revert didn't state that as the basis, the one I saw. My guess is that most of those edits were basically good edits. I restored the one that I saw that Ryan had reverted. In my report here, I noted that he was not necessarily being disruptive (beyond the fact of block evasion), though he was certainly assertive -- which can be a problem dealing with new editors. He originally "sacrificed" this sock to point out to User:DGG about problems with what has now become Iraq War misappropriations. I did go ahead and complete some of the work he was doing on that article, I hope he finds it an improvement. I'd suggest to his friends -- or other editors -- that following after Special:Contributions/Frederick day or Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite and restoring the ones that are appropriate could be a good thing. Ryan is correct, though: you will be taking responsibility for them, as if they were your own. I'll restore ones that I happen to see. After checking. --Abd (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

before following up on his request at my talk page, I did check prior history--the name was so close that with my usual insensitivity to spelling I thought it was exactly the same & was puzzled to see it. (Abd helpfully reminded me to use caution, just in case I hadn't noticed.) That and a subsequent complaint were quite to the point. We seem to have a dichotomy between our insistence on removing work of indefinitely blocked editors and suggesting the pick a new user name and behave impeccably & nobody will notice. DGG (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was WTF time for me for a while, until I figured it must be a variant spelling.... There should be no insistence on removing the work of blocked editors, but it is generally legitimate to do so, that is, any editor who thinks it to be safer for the project to blanket revert. Anyone else can then review and restore what they are willing to take responsibility for. When I did this for another blocked editor, Fred called it something like meat puppetry, which, of course, it wasn't. Ironically, one of Fd's little pranks was, when he knew I was watching his IP edits, and reverting most of them, to sprinkle some traps in BLPs. It's actually the only time I've gotten a serious warning. I figured that if some bad text had stood for months in a BLP, it wouldn't hurt for it to stand for a day more. But, no, the sense at AN/BLP was that this was a terrible thing and that each edit should be checked before removal, and I got a personal autographed warning Stop Now, Do Not Pass Go from Newyorkbrad. (The BLPs that were involved were for porn stars, and the allegedly defamatory material that I restored was actually well-sourced and not controversial. But it looked bad, and Fd knew it. Since I didn't care to do the research to find the most sterling, reliable source, I just dropped it. Did I really care if an article on a porn star had all the facts? Or, for that matter, that each and every edit of Fd be removed? No to both questions.) I would not have advised removing all those edits.... but Ryan was free to do so. I think Fred was on good behavior. Nothing I've seen was clearly bad, or uncivil by Misplaced Pages standards, and, in fact, I've reverted back most of what I've seen. I even voted Delete in an AfD that Fred had voted in, reverted out. Yes, pigs can fly and hell sometimes freezes over, but it was really a quite bad article that Fred found. Look, my position is that we need all kinds of editors, and my big objection to Fred was the incivility and edit warring. If he could learn to cooperate consistently (it looks like he's capable of it), he'd be a valuable member of the community. He did some awful stuff. But we don't -- and shouldn't -- punish. Just protect. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you the leader of the brigade which had the User:Allemantando account indef blocked despite an evident change in attitude? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was someone who noticed that Allemantando was possibly Fredrick day within about two days of registration, was involved in nascent edit wars with him and saw the damage done, but didn't do anything serious for almost a month, even though I saw disruption early on. I arranged for a friend of his to try to restrain him, and it worked, a little. But when he pushed and baited and continued to make a huge fuss about the mere fact that his edits and behavior were visible, I finally filed an SSP report and RfCU. And I don't recall demanding he be blocked. The fact is that he bailed before the process was complete. If he had simply come clean, or, later, had been willing to negotiate terms of a return, he might be editing yet. As has been shown, he could still be editing if he simply were discreet about it.

The rest I pick such obvious names is because of the level of hypocrisy this project displays. Everytime, I get blocked, invariably I get an message off one administrator or another who basically says "just sock quietly and avoid the areas you edited before" (and half the time it's the same admin who are here saying 'block this disruptive editor'). I don't want to sock quietly - if I wanted to do that, I could and would be entirely undetectable by the community - CU is a fairly blunt tool that is easy to avoid. But I don't want to do that, I've never wanted to do that because it avoids community oversight on my action and past conduct. I'm not being blocked anymore as a preventative measure, my block is now a punishment block - none of my accounts (whatever claims are made here and people can check the logs) were blocked or warned (*never* warned) for their conduct or editing beyond that week of fuckwittery towards the end of my time as Fredrick day (which is what? five months ago?) they are simply blocked for being me. The last time I went looking for unblock a couple of weeks ago and was discussing it with a number of admins, by an *amazing* coincidence - some edits from an ISP (*not* an IP, an ISP - one that has ten million customers) that it's said I've used in the past were dragged up and that was used to kick me to the kerb once again. It's a neat trick because at one time, I used all of the five largest ISPs in the UK - so with @ 25 million customers - I can be kicked to the kerb forever at simply saying "there he is!". --87.113.75.200 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And he still doesn't understand. Yes, the current case of User:Frederick day is an example where an editor who was editing within norms was blocked because of prior activity. The problem is that when someone has been disruptive, again and again, we start to expect it even if they aren't being disruptive right now. This is not punishment, it's protective, even though in this particular case, there is little difference in the action between protection and punishment. By extensive, in-your-face, I-can-do-anything-I-want-and-you-can't-stop-me, yes, Fd has set up conditions where he probably cannot quietly edit unless he avoids any ... disruptive behavior. The problem, again, is that the difference between "disruption" and "strong editing" is not crisp, at all. The situation is really classic. Once an editor attracts sufficient negative attention to be blocked with a block that sticks, even if that editor returns and behaves in a manner that would normally hardly raise an eyebrow, those who oppose the editor's approach will scrutinize the behavior for flaws. Take a look at User:PHG. It's been quiet lately, no huge fuss seems to be current, but he's been blocked for *good* edits that allegedly violated an ArbComm restriction, when, on the face of it, they did not, and when that was pointed out, it was "wikilawyering."

But if we are concerned about justice, I'd suggest looking at how Fredrick day behaved with respect to the block of User:Sarsaparilla, who had done very, very little to deserve being blocked, who was blocked without warning for offenses that, again, would hardly raise an eyebrow. And who pursued his block-evading socks? Why, none other than our friend, Fredrick day. Sarsaparilla was creating excellent articles, making good edits, etc., and it was all being removed because he was a block evader. Where was Fredrick day then? If he's going to write about hypocrisy, perhaps he should look at what he could actually know directly, what is visible to him when he's not on the internet. It's a good place to start, actually.

He is almost certainly lying about the IP. But if not, remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? That coincidence won't continue to happen. It was not merely that the IP was from a major service provider (he's exaggerated the risk of that), it was the content and coincidence of articles of concern. Sure, there are lots of editors out there who might, say, vandalize a user page. How many vandalize my user page? Not very many. Take a look, they almost all came from his location. Is there something about me that enrages certain Brits? Very recently, there has been Fd-like behavior from the 87.112-87.115 range, edit warring with ... me. But the article is Routemaster. Did I try to get this IP blocked because it could be Fd? No. I asked for semiprotection. The IP is still welcome to contribute. With discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And Fredrick day is still welcome to return as an editor, if he will openly acknowledge what he did, all of it -- which allows for the possibility that he's not the only person in the world who might do something nasty -- and if he will then engage not to repeat the behavior, and accept a short leash for a while. That's all. It was offered before, and he simply bailed. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I still reckon that pursuing an unblock of the original account is better than trying to get back in via socks. From what I recall, several of the "the should never come back ever, socks are bad" comments came from users who have been happy to approve the overturning of permablocks on accounts for editors they like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's not going to happen - I've socked and therefore I must be *punished* regardless of what any of the accounts were actually doing. --87.113.75.200 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From as I see it, your block is preventative, because you are constantly making new names to draw attention to your self, which is disruptive. Hard work and remorse are a better way to win support than flouting rules and showing off while doing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I would urge Ryan to WP:IAR and stop unconditionally reverting FDay's changes. The reason we have the rule that contribs from banned editors can be removed is so that we don't have to vet every single change to see if it was in good faith or bad faith. Especially in the case of pov pushers or subtle vandals, that can be challenging.

But FDay's issue was never one of good faith or of constructive edits; it was one of civility and assertiveness. There is no reason to believe his contribs were in bad faith. If he made personal attacks that offended other people, the damage has already been done. I just don't see a purpose in reverting his changes, and so I would say WP:IAR and stop doing it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted him as a banned editor - they aren't allowed to edit, so we remove any edits that they do manage to make. I'll do that in the future as well - if someone wants to take responsibility of the edit, they are free to revert me back and take control of the edit - it's no big deal, but that's what we do with banned editors. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can understand that if a user is allowed to make socks to get around his block and continues to act disruptively, than you cannot use "IAR", because IAR is for the best of the encyclopedia, and allowing people to think that they can get away with such disruptive actions are not for the best. Also, by going around and making multiple socks and acting in the manner that he just did above as an IP (assuming that is he), then he has broken AGF by his own admission. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the relevant section of the policy only state that banned users' comments "may" be reverted, so you don't even need WP:IAR; the policy even goes out of its way to say that it isn't the case that helpful edits "must" be reverted. -- (nonadmin) _{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

@Ottava: I'm not saying that FDay should be allowed back to the project just yet. Granted, I really wish he'd stop with the IP socking and such, because I thought as Allemandtando he was a very valuable and civil contributor -- but I absolutely agree we can't let people back under these conditions.

I'm just saying that wholesale reversion of all of his contribs is unnecessary and not beneficial to the project. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question On a related note, is anyone willing to unblock him? We certainly have a continuum of views about his reasons for socking to avoid the ban. but I view the creation of an account "frederick day" after "fredrick day" as an inartful unblock request. So does anyone want to step forward and unblock him? Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on ANI (somebody wanna dig it up?) about allowing Frederick to return from the desert and contribute to the community. While it is largely recognized that most of his contribs these days are positive and that he probably has a genuine desire to contribute in good faith, the consensus was that using socks and IP socks to demonstrate as such is inappropriate, and to unblock him would be to reward sockpuppetry, thereby screwing up any deterrence effect we have in regards to block-evading socks.

The preferred method to rejoin the community would be to quit it with the socks and contribute to a different Wikimedia project for a few months, to regain community trust. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as a non-admin), that that would be more helpful. la-wp could do with more helpers if he wants a suggestion. (you might learn something too!) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that an outcome like that is self enforcing and sclerotic. We shouldn't treat bans/indef blocks as broad philosophical stances. We should treat them as actions against editors for disrupting the community (or rather, to prevent future disruption to the community). this isn't a moot court, so specific case by case actions shouldn't impact future decisions about unrelated incidents. To be clear, I'm only responding to you because you are the messenger. I'm not assuming you share those feelings or that you should share in my distaste for that outcome. I'm not an admin (and if I were, I wouldn't unblock him because I'm 'involved'), but the community shouldn't be motivated to take a hard stance against 'issue X' in such a fashion. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Given his persistent socking, I've hardblocked his range 87.115.0.0/18 for a week. MBisanz 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that doesn't block me - so someone might want to want to look into that because it affects other editors rather than me. --87.114.36.65 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now are you blocked? MBisanz 19:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Day, can you please stop? It is actions like this which causes a problem and harms the community. If you really want to edit and contribute to Misplaced Pages to make it better, why do you continue to act in this manner? Its harmful, causes problems, and increases tension. It is not really fair to a lot of the members of the community. If you would come back to merely apologize, that would be one thing. However, this seems rather harmful and distressing. I implore you, can you stop these actions? Sure, you may feel slighted. Sure, you may feel that some people contradict each other. But there are a lot of good people out there that are affected by the things you do. At least think of them. There will be range blocks to stop you, which will cause problems. There will be sock checks to find you, which will cause problems. Innocent people will probably be hindered. Why will this happen? Because of your insistence to act in a "rebellious" manner, and for what reason? What purpose do you really hope to get out of all of this? Attention? To upset things? If you merely want to be respected and have your posting privileges returned, then you need to realize the damages that come about from your actions and stop this. Give it some time. Get in contact with some of the blocking admin. Prove that you want to help, not hinder, and please stop going about this in the manner that you are doing now. It won't help. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's obvious opposition, he is officially banned as of now. Wizardman 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of a formal ban. Frederick day has been a disruptive user at times, has socked quite a bit, but they have quite a lot of constructive edits intermixed with them. I think they do have some intent of constructively editing to the project, but obviously, for now, he won't be unblocked. I'd suggested to him that he edits another project for a few months, to show that he can constructively edit Misplaced Pages, and then return here and seek a review of his indef block. I disagree with the upgrading of the indef block to a formal ban, and I'm probably standing alone here, but if that's the case, then so be it. I wanted to make my opposition known. Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it steve - in many ways, I'm actually glad to see a bit of clarity - it beats what's go on behind the scenes for the last month "how long does blocked forever mean? FOREVER", "so should I just start a new account in secret ? NO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER", "couldn't we discuss some criteria for my return? NO BECAUSE YOU ARE BLOCKED FOREVER", "So I might as well just edit in secret ? NO BECAUSE YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER AND A DAY". At least this way, my block will be shown for what it is - a ban. --85.214.34.238 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, Fredrick day is pretty much impossible to block, without advanced systems that we don't have in place. They could be put in place, but Misplaced Pages is almost paralyzed from my point of view. Whack it on the head and a finger twitches. Short of some major structural changes, in how we utilize our volunteer labor, I'll repeat it: it is impossible to block him. He has access to not just one IP network, but many, and easily. He's said that he can pick up a number of unsecured routers in his neighborhood (which is clearly densely populated). It's believable. In addition, he has one or more direct access providers, with one or more major ISPs. The range 87.112 - 87.115 is obviously one of them, I'd guess that he gets a new address in that range just by rebooting his modem. Then, should you block that entire range, he just picks up a neighbor's router. Or maybe he walks down the block to an internet cafe. Or maybe he drives around in his car. You can, with a lot of effort, and a fair amount of inconvenience to other users, make it slightly inconvenient for him. That's about it. I gave up a long time ago asking for IP blocks, even when his IP persists for a day. Oh, did I mention that he knows how to use proxies? Now, the real trick: if what he's stated in the past has been true (which must always be questioned with him), he has other accounts, so all this talk about registering a new account and editing quietly is ... rather silly. I suspect that he has specific IP *and computers* that he uses for these other accounts. In other words, the only way to even get close to identifying him would be behaviorally. And he's careful. He changes his behavior. Now, from various clues, I have come to suspect certain users. And I am not going to reveal who they are, unless I find I could actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and even then I might not reveal it. Why? Because punishing Fredrick day has never been my motive.

If he's got an account that is not disruptive, I wouldn't go after it, generally. I didn't act quickly on Frederick day (the new spelling), thought about it for a day, and then did file a report. After others had already acted, apparently. I filed a report, months ago, on another suspected sock -- the only one that didn't result in a clear identification -- based on an IP "accident" and some behavioral evidence. It came back "possible." Perhaps because of the IP. Partly because there is a good chance the editor is not Fd, but mainly because the editor wasn't disruptive, I dropped it. Again, assuming it wasn't him, that is part of the damage from extensive socking. It creates suspicion. Fredrick day is claiming that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't -- so he might as well do it. But that is a very old and very dangerous argument, and it shows, unfortunately, that the welfare of the project isn't first on his mind. His own opinions are first, his own unrestricted freedom of action comes first. So, he will continue to remain blocked, I'll predict, at least for the time being. With the accounts that, as he has said many times, he "wants us to see." The others, he continues to do what he wants, and he's careful to keep them partitioned.

Fredrick day showed, in his actions as Fd and as Allemandtando, a certain kind of poisonous attitude. When I came to suspect other editors, I saw that same poisonous attitude, only restrained, only expressed when the editor felt safe. Are they Fredrick day? That certainly doesn't prove it. There is plenty of poison to go around, and if Fd's computers were to melt down and he became indisposed, Misplaced Pages would still have to deal with massive incivility and factional division. He isn't the cause, and so I don't consider "getting rid of him" to be the solution. I'd rather try to find a way to include him. But that won't happen until he also recognizes what I've been saying. It's not personal.

As to deleting his contributions, the bottom line is that any editor may do it. I don't recommend it, but, on the other hand, in reviewing some of the User:Frederick day edits, there is a certain edge to them. He was correct, generally, that is, I haven't seen any edits that would, properly, even result in a warning. However, a very experienced user popping into obscure articles that are being edited by the clueless, who doesn't take them by the hand, welcoming them and guiding them through our sometimes arcane process, but figuratively bonks them over the head with Misplaced Pages rules, this does some damage. So there is some value in reverting him; on the other hand, it can raise false hopes for the clueless. Whew! -- they think -- dodged that bullet! And then comes the AfD and it snows Delete. I found it a rewarding exercise to follow Frederick's edits in detail and to restore some and to deal differently with others. He was always "right," so far, but his actions weren't always the best that could be done, because of that missing welcoming element. Bottom line: there is no policy requiring his edits to be reverted, nor those of any blocked editor. But any editor may revert on sight, without harm, except for the BLP problem I mentioned above. And if someone doesn't like it, they can revert them back, thus taking responsibility for them. If his friends care about his contributions, they are perfectly welcome to take up what I've done to a small degree: review all his edits and restore the ones where reversion was a loss. And then, if someone doesn't like that restoration, they have someone to complain to, a responsible party. --Abd (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Abd, I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but I think it might be a good idea to let someone else "look after" User:Fredrick day, as it could be interpreted that your disagreements with him are turning into a personal vendetta. I first encountered him while opposing one of his deletion nominations, and since then it seems like you have appeared everywhere he goes. I obviously don't know what is going on in any other person's head, but it seems like someone could easily get the wrong idea. There are a few responsible and incisive administrators in the above thread who are looking at this, so it's safe enough to leave it for others. Now I'm off to take my own advice and edit an article that needs quite a bit of work! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, Grey Knight. One question, though. What "disagreement?" The last few days, yes, I have appeared in many places he went (as User:Frederick day. Restoring his contributions, more often than not, or in some way trying to make up for them being more or less automatically reverted. "Vendetta?" Strange vendetta, I'd say. As to "incisive admins," yes, some are involved. And I've gotten appreciative email from more than a few. So.... what? --Abd (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Boldautomatic

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could step in and review the following situation.

Our story starts over at Teaching English as a foreign language where Boldautomatic pops up every now and then to insert a link to a wiki which forms part of the website of ICAL, an online TEFL course provider. The insertion is removed by multiple users, and only when they're on the verge of a 3RR violation does Boldautomatic take it to the the talk page, where they consistently fail to answer (reasonable) enquiries about whether they have a conflict of interest, cast aspersions on the motivations of those who are removing the link, and generally taking umbrage about the fact that their link was deleted.

On reviewing their contributions, ICAL (TESL Provider) had cropped up as a page they created about the organisation itself, which didn't assert any notability whatsoever. I flagged it for deletion under A7 (on the basis that I was semi-involved, so didn't want to delete it myself). That then lead to a whole diatribe of argument on the talk page against deletion by Boldautomatic, which essentially boiled down to (i) other crap exists and (ii) ICAL isn't a website, it's a school. By the time the page, and its talk page, are deleted by Accounting4Taste on the grounds of A7 I'm pretty blue in the face at having to repeatedly explain the concept of notability as it related to online organisations and point the user in the direction of the relevant policies and guidelines.

Sadly it doesn't end there. Boldautomatic then moves to my talk page (starting the conversation with "So, GB, you managed to get the ICAL page deleted. I expect you're feeling very pleased with yourself", which is possibly not the greatest way to open a conversation). You can read the rest of it there, and on their talk page. All the posts fail to actually address the issues with the ICAL article, but instead amount to little more than barely-disguiged baiting and poorly hidden arguments along the lines of "well, if you're not going to let my article stay then this one should be deleted too". By the time the last post comes around this is explicitly clear, but if you're anything like me you'll be bored to tears by that stage.

To cut a long story short (too late, probably), I've answered their questions fully and repeatedly, and once the extent of the trolling became clear, asked them once, twice and three times to stay off my talk page, the last time accompanied by a pointer in the direction of the help desk where they could ask any further questions, and a warning that if they continued to ignore my request I would be asking for them to be blocked. Their response to that post is pretty indicative of their behaviour generally.

It's not clearcut vandalism, so I'm not at WP:AIV, but I'm fed up with the disruption being caused to me by an editor who it is fair to assume has a conflict of interest and I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review and take whatever action they feel necessary. _GB 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm having great problems with GB's attitude as an editor. If the deleted page conversation is checked you will find that he requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school. When I pressed him (I assume it's a him and not a her) on this matter he went back on previous comments and finally admitted that it was requested for speedy deletion because it was not notable enough.

Checking the site, my understanding is that speedy deletion is not actually a remedy for non-notable pages. I am at a loss to understand why GB was so adamant that the page be removed in this manner. Perhaps someone can explain this.

Re talking on GB's talk page - just trying to get a straight answer out of him. They make a comment on my page, I respond on his page. I, for one, am fed up with the rather high-handed attitude GB exhibits and the way in which he has consistently refused to give a plain answer to a straight question, all the time prevaricating and going back on previous comments.

Very disappointed in the standard of this editor! --Boldautomatic (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is now getting seriously tiresome. My comments on the talk page of ICAL (which I've temporarily restored here for ease of reference) speak for themelves. I start by flagging ICAL under A7 (web) - "an article about a website ... that doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - he can't say he didn't read that bit, because he quotes it in his first post to the talk page. I end with "None of are predicated about its inclusion or not solely on the basis of whether it's an online organisation, but about notability, and specifically whether it satisfies the criteria of notability as they apply to websites.", and I'm not exactly sure where along the way he gets the idea that I was "prevaricating", "going back on previous comments" or somehow "finally admitted" that it was not notable enough. Halfway through the discussion I am even told to "Forget notability" - an interesting thing to tell me if a little later on I'm supposed to be changing my tune and suddenly saying it's all about notability.

As the talk page shows clearly enough, Bold's responses and arguments were :

1. it's not a website it's a school (answer : no, it's website);
2. why are you biased against ICAL (answer : I'm not);
3. let's delete all the entries that lead onto commercial sites, starting with Microsoft (answer : no, let's not, let's just make sure that non-notable organisations aren't included);
4. I'm going to flag a (physical) school for speedy deletion to spite you then (answer : physical schools don't fall under A7 - have a look right there in the wording of the tag itself, and sure enough the speedy was declined);
5. ICAL is a school because it has students and offices (answer : it's a website, see (1) above);
6. So, online educational establishments aren't allowed on Misplaced Pages, then (answer : they are, if they're notable enough);
7. Forget notability, are ONLINE educational establishments allowed on Misplaced Pages (answer : any organisation is allowed on it's notable and that notability can be verified through reliable sources);
8. "So now we can discount all that you said about about it being removed because it relates to an online instituation" (answer : have you actually read and understood any of the comments above?).

I've been banging my head against a metaphorical brick wall so hard I'm in danger of getting a real headache. Would someone please read the talk page (and that includes you, Bold, since I'm not convinced you actually read any of it first time around) and post their views. When you've finished, Bold, can I suggest you also read this page on speedy deletion - if you had done before writing your post above you'd have found out quite quickly that speedy deletion is a (astonishingly frequently used) remedy for non-notable pages.

As for being "high handed" and being "disappointed in the standard of this editor", well, until Bold answers the (straightforward) question of whether he has a conflict of interest or not, and not that I see anything wrong with how I've behaved, I don't see why I should behave any differently to a user who has, amongst other things, insinuated that (i) the flagging of the page for speedy deletion was an underhand tactic carried out by a rival (oh, out of malice, too), (ii) I must be "very please with self" that ICAL was deleted, (iii) I must work for another commercial organisation because I (and others) removed a link he kept inserting, and (iv) when in the minority, the concensus (sic) is ganging up against him. _Gb 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me break this down. GB deleted the page because - in his opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable. Thus there were 2 criteria which he needed it to fulfill: 1) it needed to be a website and 2) it needed to be non-notable.

The article was not about a website. It was about a school. A distance learning school. Like OU only smaller. A school with over 10,000 students operating for over 10 years and arguably the largest and most established in its field.

Later on GB admitted that online organisations can have entries here (if they're notable). So that negated the first criterion. He thus wanted to delete it because it was not notable only.

Is ICAL notable? Well considering the above facts about the school that is debatable. In trying to find out the criteria for notability I referenced several other articles which GB was happy to allow on the site, notably this one which he refused to delete because according to him it was "physical" therefore it was allowed. He did not mention the notability of the article I referenced.

Herein lies the problem. GB allowed the Nanjing school to remain (though it contains no verifiable references) because he must have felt it was notable (physicality having been proved to be irrelevant) and yet he deleted ICAL even though it was similar in style and content.

Furthermore, when I tried to establish from GB what aspects of this page constituted notability he steadfastly refused to explain. I know he's unpaid, but it's hardly professional. (I now note that the page in question has been flagged for deletion - not speedy deletion like the ICAL page, note, but a more considered deletion. It is a shame such care could not have been taken over the ICAL page - why was that?)

As for GB's accusation of trolling, I am afraid that I fear this is GB's excuse for not being able to answer my questions in full! --Boldautomatic (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's late and I'll post a full reply in the morning, but in the meantime :

1. If you're going to break things down, at least get them correct. I didn't delete the page, I flagged it for deletion. The policy two criteria are that (a) it was about a website, and (b) the article didn't assert the notability of the website concerned. If you'd actually bothered to read the policies at any stage you'd know this.
2. That'd be, what, the fifth time you've been asked if you have a conflict of interest? Do you? If you have no conflict why the reticence to answer?
3. It's interesting to note how quickly you back away from your assertions about what I said when presented with the actual record of our discussions. In particular I note the speed and ease with which you moved from " requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school" to " deleted the page because - in opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable" when presented with the substance of our conversation. If only you could read the relevant policies you're being pointed at repeatedly with such ease.
4. I'm loving the irony that despite having wasted untold posts on you, and having asked on numerous occasions whether you have a conflict of interest, without having received the courtesy of a reply, I'm the one that hasn't answered your questions in full.
5. In the time you've spent discussing this you could have re-written ICAL as a featured article, and yet you persist in running the same argument time and time again. Would you still like to assert that you're not trolling?

Let's try and keep the next exchange short and sweet. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I await GB's full reply in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not getting it until you answer the question that I have asked you repeatedly. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb 08:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that it would have been that difficult a question to answer. I've provided you with some pointers on your talk page. _Gb 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe

I've blocked David Tombe (talk · contribs) for three months for disruptive editing at Mozart, part of a general pattern of disruption at every article he touches, most notably at Centrifugal force. Some will remember his previous appearances at AN/I in May. I see little prospect of improvement, given his lengthy block history and his refusal to accept advice, and believe that a full ban may be in order. Acroterion _(talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the block: I could not use my administrative tools myself, since I was involved in the editing, and the associated talk page conflict. This is one of the most obvious cases of WP:DEADHORSE I've seen in a while, and it has wasted the time of a lot of people in completely unrelated places. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support Acroterion's block of this patently disruptive editor. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A side note: an IP editor in the range 71.xxx.xxx.xxx or 72.xxx.xxx.xxx pops up reliably when Tombe is blocked to accuse everybody of bad faith and mistreatment of Tombe. Consensus is that it is not Tombe himself, since they appear to be on a different continent, and have a different writing style. The IP can be disruptive on his own account, and WP:RBI should apply. Acroterion _(talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be blocked to prevent disruption. Ncmvocalist ([[User

talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have confused the facts. David Tombe was attacked by TrustTruth and Rfortner in a nasty way. They should have been the ones blocked. Again, as usual, you have confused the facts.

Community Ban

Thanks. I was heading over here to request this very thing, after seeing the Mozart and Centrifugal force disruptions. I think an outright ban may be in order. Eusebeus (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban. He's been blocked several times within a short timeframe (the last 3 months); the misconduct has not changed, and there is no sign of change or improvement in the future either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose I should ask the question: would any admin be willing to unblock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd rather see what happens after the three month block before going to a full ban. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Ned Scott and standard escalation. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not tell the real offenders that they were wrong. They were rude and nasty to Mr Tombe. I think you guys dont like to face the facts. Mr Tome cited actual facts which were summairly rejected in a nasty way. They should have said thank you for your contribution Mr Tombe, but they were rude and nasty. This is a typical behavior of editors of wikipedai. This needs to stop, but you management people let it continue because of your bias. Misplaced Pages needs to offically apologise to Mr Tombe for the bad behavior of its editors who dont actually follow the rules, but require that Mr Tombe has to. I think you are being dishonest in your actions towards Mr Tombe.72.64.63.21 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jew of Linz

The dicussion page topic "False claims about the Jewish descent of the Bethmann family" in the article "The Jew of Linz" contains entries by an anonymous editor, one "Number17 (talk · contribs)" (who also edits under the name "Goodmorningworld (talk · contribs)") who has been systematically removing references cited in this article and in other relevant Misplaced Pages articles, without providing his own supporting references to justify the deletions. I'm not sure if anything can be done about it, but I am drawing the matter to administrative attention. I would ask anyone who attends to these things to read the discussion page topic for details. Please let me know if anything further is required, and the final administrative decision on this matter. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: "Kimberly Cornish" is the name of the author of the book the article concerns. Skomorokh 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kimberley, can you provide us some diffs showing Goodmorningworld and Number17 removing verifiable references? I only see two edits by Goodmorningworld to the recent page history of Jew of Linz, (none by Number17) and they both seem to be constructive. On the other hand, this edit in of yours in particular worries me: . Please realize that if you are actually the author of this book, your editing this page constitutes a potential conflict of interest, and I would strongly encourage you be very careful not to make biased edits like the one above. L'Aquatique 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the article for a moment, this Number17/Goodmorningworld thing has more to it than meets the eye. Number17 stopped editing in June of last year, and has no contribs since then. Goodmorningworld has <50 contribs and has been editing less than a month, and he uses Number17 as his sig, e.g. here -- hence Kimberly's confusion.

Block log is clean for Number17, so it is definitely not a block-evading sock -- but in any case, it's confusing as hell. Maybe he just lost his password from his previously retired account? heh... I will ask Goodmorningworld about it on his talk page, as well as notify him of this ANI thread. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, their interests seem diametrically opposed too... maybe GMW didn't realize there was already a user Number17? In any case, I eagerly await his clarification. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When I registered to Misplaced Pages, I wanted "Number17" for my user name, in order to be consistent with postings of mine on other message boards, where I already use "Number17". However, Misplaced Pages told me that "Number17" was not available as a user name, so I made up another user name instead, i.e., "Goodmorningworld", and used the "Nickname" feature of the Misplaced Pages system to have "Number17" appear as my signature. I intended no deception by this. See WikiAnswers page here for where my discussion with Cornish began, I used "Number17" there and wanted to use it here as well to avoid confusion. (The thread on WikiAnswers has been locked by the management and edited, there is one error about a third of the way down where the WikiAnswers people put in a bolded "Number17" twice in succession by mistake, other than that their edit is accurate.)--Number17 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am still new to Misplaced Pages and learning the ropes. I just discovered the page on fringe theories. Based on my reading of this, I am proposing that the entire "Jew of Linz" page be classified as "Pseudoscience". --] (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS: See, this "Jewish Bethmanns" canard is actually just one minor strand in Cornish's whacky book. It just happens that I already knew a bit about the Bethmann history. But if the book in its entirety is a mountain of madness, we've barely even reached the foothills. There is a great deal more craziness. Take, for example, this bit from Cornish's self-promotional Wiki (he refers to himself in the third person): "Cornish also points out that the pianist and composer Franz Liszt Franz Liszt had abandoned the mother of his children, the Comtesse Marie d'Agoult, for Princess Carolyne Wittgenstein, who had taken the Liszt/d'Agoult children away from their mother. Liszt's daughter, Cosima Liszt, thus grew up hating Jews and her father's paramour Carolyne Wittgenstein in particular. (Cornish quotes the opera singler Dietrich Fisher-Deskau as his authority for Princess Wittgenstein's Jewishness.)"
This is nuts, totally nuts! Regardless of what Fischer-Dieskau had to say (if Cornish even quotes him accurately at all), of course Princess Wittgenstein was not Jewish!
There are an inordinately high number of assertions of fact in Cornish's book, many of which upon closer inspection turn out to be false. But who has the time to go over every one of these claims with a fine-toothed comb, ferret out the false ones, and then spend weeks and months fighting Cornish tooth and nail over each and every one of them (for he simply refuses to acknowledge when he is wrong)?
I for one would not trust Cornish to give me the time of day!--Number17 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Swampfire

I have been harassed by this user for some time if you go to his User talk:Swampfire page you will see that an admin left a warning there to stay away from my talk page but he has left continued messages there. He continues to edit war on the Forrest Griffin article despite myself and all other users taking part in a disucssion, he takes the liberty of making his own edits without anybody reaching a consensus. I believe his edits are in bad faith as he has distorted the articles references to cite things that they do not reference and he has written the article so that it hides noteworthy information while pandering to his own opinion on a subject as if it were fact. I have tried to get an admin to arbitrate but my calls have gone unnoticed or ignored. --Xander756 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look into this in too much detail (I just wanted to let you know that this is being looked into), however I would remind you that rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, not when you disagree with another's edit as you did here, and at several other places in that page's history. I have removed the tool from your account - if you demonstrate that you will use it only for vandalism, it can be reinstated. Regardless, the situation will be looked into - don't think you're being ignored, and I've notified Swampfire of this discussion so that he can explain his reasoning for what's going on. Hersfold 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not used rollback function in this scenario, all reversions I have used the undo function, not rollback. I use rollback when patrolling recent changes on wikipedia or reverting vandalism on lacrosse articles as part of my function on the wikiproject: lacrosse. I would appreciate re-instation. --Xander756 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Four diffs have been left on your talk page that show the use of rollback in this conflict. Hersfold 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When you check into him. Also note the reverts that were just made. I believe Xander756 has now resorted to sockpuppetry. After he returned to the page and left the new subsection alone. 2 mysterious accounts were created the first one has one edits in it. And it was to revert my last additon. The second new account also has one edit, and it was to remove the new subsection. Kind of weird don't you think for a new user to create an account and come directly to Forrest griifins page and do this. They both seemed to remove exactly what Xander756 doesnt want on the page, and yet that are their only editsSwampfire (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also both I and User:Aktsu have rewritten this article to a NPOV. But Xander756 refuses all edits at placing it to a NPOV. What he wants said is in there, it was not deleted. It was expanded on to represent the entire scenario with valid citations. That he has removed more than once. Also he has abuse WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL while attacking me on several occasions. All of which are evidenced on his talk page , but he has tried to hide themSwampfire (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aktsu has since expressed his doubt over that edit on the discussion page of Forrest Griffin. I wonder if he would be surprised to see you are claiming him to be your ally in this? --Xander756 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 2 accounts that mysteriously showed up to remove exactly what Xander745 has been removing. The first one was Deshicalanor here is the first removal and here is the second by user CthulhuGuldo also I notice that both of these mysterious accounts showed up to remove these at almost the same time, he had his rollback removed according to what is said up there^^^^ by Hersfold. According to edits made by Xander756 he left a comment on Forrest Griffin talkpage at 5:17 then disappears, then still at 5:17 Deshicalanor shows up to remove what I had just editted and Xander756 did not want there and it is the one and only eddit by this user. Then at 5:20 CthulhuGuldo shows up to remove the subsection Xander756 doesnt want on the page and again it is the one and only edit by this user as well, Then at 5:22 Xander756 leaves a message on Hersfolds talkpage asking for his rollback back. Funny how Xander made no edits between 5:17 and 5:22 at the exact time the 2 sockpuppets showed up to remove what Xander didnt want on the page.Swampfire (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I said about Aktsu was he rewrote the article and you reverted it too. The proof of his rewrite is on my talkpage.Swampfire (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history I actually made an edit to the talk page of Forrest Griffon at the exact time this first "sock puppet" showed up. Links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Forrest_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=228752060 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Forrest_Griffin&diff=228752040&oldid=228745421 I would not be surprised if this was another scheme to try to get me into trouble here by Swampfire. Is it just mere coincidence that after these accounts showed up an IP address began to defile my talk and user page? Is there any policy against accusing people of things without evidence? --Xander756 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I already stated I have nothing to hide let them check my IP. Also I believe you left the comment on the talkpage at around 5:17:01, while already having a page open creating a new account. Then logged out of Xander leaving the new account page open and made the edits at around 5:17:59. then created a second, to remove the rest. at 5:20, then logged back in and went to Hersfold page at 5:22 to complain about no longer having rollback.Swampfire (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found a third and new personal attack on me here yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me.Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that diff that is a violation of either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

What I see here is both editors aggressively edit-warring on the Forrest Griffin article.

I propose that both Swampfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an editing restriction of WP:1RR for 2 months on the Forrest Griffin article. Should either editor violate this restriction, they are to be subject to short blocks of no longer than a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block duration may increase to 1 month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No way - these guys have never been blocked, let alone for edit warring. I'm seeing nothing remotely near the sort of disruptive behaviour need for an editing restriction. Get them to file an RfC on the content dispute - that's all that's needed for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, this was intended as a measure to be preventative in edit-warring on the article (and possibly more effective in letting the message sink in than blocks). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, let them file an RfC, if that doesn't work, then mediation might be a better course of action. All of these should be tried before we result to editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They've tried to get others input for a few days now - but it hasn't significantly changed their editing pattern on the article. I still don't see why we should wait for blocks first, or why they shouldn't be subject to 1RR as opposed to the standard 3RR per 24 hours (note - it's not the 1RR per week restriction). If it was just a content dispute in the absence of edit-warring over a number of days, I'd agree - Article RFC or mediation is enough to deal with content issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't give people editing restrictions for edit warring on an article over a couple of days. Send them to MedCab and be done with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's been 5 days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan - despite the flaming row that broke out on my talk page after I logged off last night, neither of these editors would be benefited by such a restriction at this time. Should the dispute continue - and this should possibly be considered anyway - the page can be fully protected until both sides can agree on something, even if it is just to disagree with each other. An editing restriction will just continue tensions; what we need to do is try to get these guys to actually talk to each other. Hersfold 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason that a solution such as this would be unfair is that I have been attempting to get other's input on the subject. I was the one who appealed for admin arbitration and who messaged admins in an attempt to get a 3rd opinion. I have been the one to attempt a discussion before edits while he has simply tried to force his way onto the article. To treat us both equally would then be unjust. If you look on my talk page, the other user who was involved in the debate has posted that he thoroughly agrees with me and that I was right in defending my position. Why then should I be punished for this? --Xander756 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war - yes, you did attempt to start discussion, but you then need to stop edit warring, which you didn't. It's standard procedure to treat both parties equally, as it would be considerably more unfair for us to "take sides" in that manner. Hersfold 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Hersfold. Also, it's not as a punishment - it's just so you both don't edit-war, and instead, discuss your differences rationally. Personally, I think that if both of you voluntarily agree to the restriction, you'll feel much more compelled to edit in a way that isn't considered disruptive. But if this dispute grows from being between both of you to several editors on either side, then sadly, the page will be fully protected and you won't be able to edit it at all - you'll only be able to discuss on the talk page (which is sort-of what this proposal was encouraging - discussion to the point you have consensus, rather than revert after revert). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rooting for the page to be fully protected. I requested it days ago but my request mysteriously vanished. I would be all in favor of full page protection until the discussion can reach a general consensus. As for what Hersfold claimed about how it would be unfair for you to "take sides", I don't see the logic in that. Would it be unfair to block someone from wikipedia for repeated vandalism? In effect by doing so you would be taking the side against him. Obviously nobody here would claim that is unfair, and this scenario is no different. --Xander756 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well genuine content disputes are different to WP:VANDALISM. When it's a content dispute where you both appear to be genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia/site in terms of quality, it's generally not so easy to know who's causing the edit-warring, or to rule on content (as in, who's correct, or which version should preside). Obviously, exceptions apply - and sometimes you can see who's causing the edit-warring. Ideally, all editors should follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You boldly insert something, someone reverts it, then you both discuss your differences as to why it should/shouldn't be included, or why/how it should be modified. Consensus does change over time - if someone boldly remove something that's been there for a long time or as a result of a previous consensus discussion, that can be reverted, and then the cycle starts again. When editors use the Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert...cycle (or with unresolved discussion in between each revert), it's considered disruptive edit-warring and damages the encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not how it played out at all. The other user reverted edits from the page without reason. Another user reverted his reversion. He reverted the edit for a second time so I then reverted his reversion. He reverted AGAIN and I changed it back and added a new reference. He didn't bother reading it and simply reverted it again. I asked for admin arbitration and I asked for a 3rd opinion. I even asked for page protection and NOTHING HAPPENED. I wasn't going to simply sit there for days while someone vandalized an article and the staff didn't bother to step in.--Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 'staff' here are all unpaid so it can take some time before your concerns or issues are addressed. What was the conclusion(s) at 3rd opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It never came. Though another user involved did recently weigh in on my talk page stating that he clearly thinks I was correct in the issue. --Xander756 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to log off now and won't be on for some time. I recommend you take a look at our dispute resolution system, and try either Article RFC, mediation, or if necessary, RFC on user conduct (bear in mind that 2 users need to certify the basis of the dispute). See how you go from there, and let me know of any updates (maybe tomorrow), okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look at the edits, You will see after removing the word because it did not belong. I since then have continually tried to add the full context of the discussion. I even incorporated what he wanted said into the article with valid citations. He reverted, removing valid citations as he only wants exactly his wording in it with no explanation over why less than 15% of the crowd viewed it as controversial. To use the word controversial in the context it was used without explanation in an encyclopedia format gives the impression that a majority viewed the fight this way. When in fact 80-85% viewed the fight positively and 15-20% or less viewed as controversial. Dave Meltzer (someone that Xander756 had quoted in this several times) of Yahoo! Sports was there and states. When Griffin was announced as the winner, I made sure to look at the crowd for the reaction. Eighty to 85 percent people at Mandalay Bay standing and cheering, with a large percentage practically dancing and celebrating the title change.. Dave Meltzer also says this In those situations, boos are always louder than cheers, but this was very clearly a decision most of the crowd agreed with, no matter how it may have sounded on television. So in an encyclopedic article over the Biography of a living person to state the fight would in that manner would be going against WP:DUE. So if you actually try looking at the whole discussion. You will see I have continually tried to improve the article while it is Xander756 that has not. I have also been a victim or personal attack by Xander on several occasions. Also I Initiated the discussion on Forrest talkpage not him. He was the one that chose to take it off the talkpage and me responses on his talkpage was just that responses to him leaving something on mine. The timestamps show that. I have tried in every manner to appease this person. He clearly stated his only beef was he wanted it to say controversial. Well I editted to say that that but with a full explanation. In fact let me take this one step farther. If he truly thought it was the fight that was controversial he would of added the word controversial to Jacksons page as well but he had never even been to Jacksons page. In fact I had monitored Jackson page the whole time and the word was never there. In fact when someone finally placed it there a lil over a day ago. I removed it and no one cared. Then I made an addition to Jackson's page expanding over something that wasn't there. Xander756 followed me to the page(making his first edit on it) and reworded a lil portion I had added, which I had no problem with. But in the edit summary he noted that he hoped we could agree on Jackson's article as is. Yet if you look he did not try to add controversial. Which is as I have been saying the whole time. If it is not obvious to others, It is obvious to me that I believe that his only problem is he has issue with Forrest, and not the decision. Otherwise this whole time he would of been trying to add it Jackson's page as well.Swampfire (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I have never harassed him, stalked him, and all the other things he has claimed. All you have to do is view the timestamps to see this. I have just merely had to defend myself on about 100 pages, because he goes everywhere making false claims. If he had not tried this stuff on so many pages. I would not of had to go there to defend myself. But he tries to do the same thing on so many different boards. He goes there and make a false claim against me as well as personal attacks. When I go there to defend myself he says I am stalking and harassing him for doing so. Check my edits vs his. You will see to my knowledge I have not been on any other pages after him, unless it was about me. I havent left a message on his personal talkpage unless it was in response to something he left on mine. I can also point to atleast 3 places where he persoanlly attacked me. Not including calling me a stalker. Also note that through all of this I have merely defended myself, and did not try to start any cases against him.Swampfire (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:aktsu has weighed in on the subject in agreement with me. --Xander756 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The original conflict was over the inclusion of the word "controversial". Xander756 added (diff) multiple source with atleast one spelling it out ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"). Xander's reverts readdind the word I agreed with, as it _was_ a controversial decision - and it was sourced. The conflict escalated to be about a rewrite of the entire section (which I helped wrote as an attempt at a compromise). Xander felt the rewrite was unnecessary and too long, while Swampfire argued it was a good compromise as it explained the controversy. In that conflict I was originally for the rewrite, but am now unsure if simply saying it was controversial would suffice. --aktsu  16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done here about it. Article RFC or mediation as linked in WP:DR is the way to go. I've basically spelled out the editing rules for both of you, so don't edit-war, and instead, discuss. Until then, try to agree to a temporary version pending the resolution of Article RFC and/or mediation. Currently, that's best for both of you, and for the encyclopedia. Thank you for giving a bit of context Aktsu. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over tooth advice on the Ref Desk

There's a bit of an edit war brewing over a question that (I believe) seeks medical advice over on the Science Reference Desk. The original poster sought to know whether the appearance of a new tooth in his pregnant wife's mouth was related to her pregnancy.

The established practice at the Ref Desks in response to a question seeking medical advice is to remove the question and replace it with boilerplate text (Template:Rd-deleted), along with – where reasonable – a more detailed or personalized explanation of why the question was removed and couldn't be answered. The relevant guidelines are at

• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines
• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice

I've been going back and forth with StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over whether or not this question seeks medical advice (within the definitions provided by our guidelines) and brought the matter here rather than get sucked into further edit warring with StuRat. Apparently, the matter was too urgent and important to discuss at the Ref Desk talk page prior to engaging in edit warring.

I admit that the tipping point for my decision to remove the thread was when StuRat offered his armchair diagnosis ("coincidental natural eruption of a wisdom tooth") and prognosis (normal part of human growth") to a pregnant woman.

Ref Desk posts:

• Removed by TenOfAllTrades (and replaced with boilerplate):
• Restored by StuRat:
• Removed again:
• Restored again by StuRat:

Discussions:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Tooth advice
• User talk:StuRat#RD diagnoses

I leave the matter in cooler, more capable hands than mine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to remove it, certainly a great deal of the replies seemed to take it as a request and they sure jumped in to help diagnose. that's a bad idea, and your removal the right solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be extracted. Baseball Bugs 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ba-DUM-bum. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke. It's fair to say that anyone who comes to a "website that anyone can edit" seeking medical advice might want to first make sure their life insurance is up to date. Baseball Bugs 07:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop that. We don't give professional financial advice either. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall us giving professional anything advice, come to think of it. The key here is that the question wasn't "What's the deal with new teeth during pregnancy", which would invite a general answer, but "What's the deal with this particular tooth in this particular person's mouth during this particular pregnancy", which invites a specific diagnosis of a specific situation. Good removal. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an informative note: the question's original poster has commented on the meta-discussion and clarified his intent: diff --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At two different talk pages, it is said that I opined to keep the question. Wanted to answer at this all-in-one gathering that I consistently favored to remove the question, and I thanked Ten_of_trades for his going beyond the call of duty for explaining to me personally the exact policy which he followed, and I find no fault whatsoever. I only criticize the exorbitance of creating a discussion about a discussion about a question. I summed it up already through an analogy Sentriclecub (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bureaucratic cousin to the concept of a pre-meeting meeting. Baseball Bugs 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ban Jokestress from editing the article about Simon LeVay

Simon LeVay has publicly complained about the way that Jokestress edited the article about him, pointing out that she inserted many misleading and poorly sourced claims about his scientific work, and that she was motivated to do this by personal hostility . However, Jokestress has continued to edit this page , has recently tried to use NARTH (an anti-gay organization) as a source for a quote from LeVay, and has proposed inserting further controversial and derogatory material related to eugenics . I strongly urge that Jokestress be banned from making any further changes to this article; her past behaviour there probably amounts to a violation of BLP. Skoojal (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This would be extremely unusual for Jokestress, who usually researches content thoroughly and understands WP:BLP very well having been subject to defamatory edits on the article about her. Is there an OTRS ticket? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, I do not think that this is correct. Jokestress used a defamatory quote from Roy Porter about LeVay, which implied that LeVay endorsed the use of eugenics to prevent homosexuality. Jokestress is currently proposing comparing LeVay to an infamous Nazi, Carl Vaernet. This would obviously violate BLP. Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to me more a content dispute than anything else. If LeVay has concerns about his portrayal on wikipedia which can be deemed violations of BLP, then contacting OTRS is an option. Looking at the history of the article, it seems Skoojal could be considered to be approaching ownership boundaries given the substantive nature of recent edits and edit summaries which seem to indicate writing on behalf of the subject. Minkythecat (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly every single piece of criticism of LeVay that Jokestress added to the article was misleading, and it was appropriate for me to remove this stuff (I wish I had done it more quickly). It created a very distorted and inaccurate picture of LeVay's work. In the case of the Porter quote, it was also defamatory. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jokestress has a substantial history of engaging in off-wiki attacks against scientists she doesn't like (such as by writing letters to their employers recommending they be fired), and creating (or substantially editing) their bio's on wikipedia to make the pages appear to back her accusations up. Typically, these are sex researchers who have published data in RS's that challenge user:Jokestress sociopolitical views. My opinion is that user:Jokestress is in clear violation of WP:COI in editing Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, Ken Zucker, and related pages. When contested, User:Jokestress will use the talk pages to convince other editors that off-wiki accusations should be recorded on WP, but fail to reveal that she herself was the very person who filed those accusations with the scientists' employers. For example, see Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?. In my opinion, she should be banned from editing not only Simon LeVay, but sex researchers in general.

In the way of my own full disclosure: I am myself a sex researcher. Although user:Jokestress has never targeted me (outside of snide comments she makes about me on her personal website), I am of course acquainted with some of the people she has targeted, many of whom are colleagues of mine.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This situation is similar to a number of previous situations where I have edited controversial biographies and editors with strong POVs have objected. My goal is to be fair but not to shy away from controversy. In the case of LeVay, User:Skoojal has been systematically removing quotations from noted academics and others who have drawn clear connections between LeVay's endorsement of "a new eugenics" and historical problems with labeling oppressed minorities such as gay people as biologically distinct. These include Nancy Ordover, who discusses LeVay at length in American Eugenics, and noted historian Roy Porter, whose review of LeVay in the New York Times has already been purged by Skoojal. Skoojal is also resisting any mention of LeVay's connection to eugenics, which I have proposed on the talk page before adding. Most of Skoojal's edits, on the other hand, are unilateral deletions, and his talk page gives a sense of how he interacts with other editors and administrators when confronted about edit warring and BLP (here and here). Examples:

• "I do not need your condescending advice."
• "Please don't be arrogant and tell me what to do."
• "If you yourself don't have the power to block me, you are wasting your time telling me that I can be blocked."

Just as troubling, Skoojal has been systematically removing other reliable sources he does not like. This does feel like a case of WP:OWN, despite Skoojal's claims to the contrary on his User page.

As for User:James Cantor, his first order of business involving me on Misplaced Pages was to add unflattering information to my Misplaced Pages bio: "Some scholars have likened her as 'the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort' of activist." The source for this quotation was a blog, and the quotation was made by him. Adding himself as a source for unflattering commentary in my bio reflects his ongoing efforts to suppress dissent and discredit critics of his employer, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. In other words, both complaints above seem to be based on their antipathy for me because I have included reliably-sourced but unflattering information in biographies of controversial people with whom they agree and/or work. In James Cantor's case, he has already gone through a mediation (here) for his attempts to add negative information to critics' biographies, including mine. He reminds me of other editors engaged in questionable "science" who attack biographies of scientific skeptics like Stephen Barrett. James Cantor accuses me of some sort of impropriety daily and is trying to import a style of interaction to which he is accustomed off-wiki.

Thanks to my fellow long-time editors who weighed in above. Jokestress (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress's claim above is false - I have not removed the quote from Nancy Ordover (although I may possibly do that at some time in the future if, on further investigation, I decide that it is inappropriate). The 'quotations from noted academics' were deeply misleading in almost every single case. Jokestress's quotations from me are also misleading - most them in fact apply only to one edit warring incident and none of them apply (as she implies) to BLP. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The COI seems pretty blatant at Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?, but past precedent doesn't give me any confidence that proper action will be taken in this matter. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can ban her, but a review of Levay's critique certainly would be right about the duplications being unneeded (id they still exist.) However, looking over the linked articles, she certainly seems to be heavily pushing an agenda against anyone who suggests that homosexuality may be genetically predetermined. If a ban is placed, it probably ought to be a topic ban on the topic of 'research and researchers into the causes and origins of homosexuality', so as to widely cut her off from causing fights, while certainly allowing her to continue editing articles about gay and transgender (transsexual? gender Identity? not sure which is PC these days) topics, like activisms, histories, protests and conferences. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed an odd ending to the article; we don't need to attack fellow editors, nor ... SOAPBOX... (i messed that up in the edit summary)... about how accurate it is. Levay can go to OTRS, he can register and bring this all to the article talk, or other options, but let's not play childish games on the page. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my removal of a WP:SOAPBOX vio is causing troubles at the page now. I removed it because it's a poorly worded attack on Jokestress, citing a blog-like essay by the article's subject, which at best is a Primary source, not personal essay (blog?). I feel that regardless of her behavior, and of the fact that I support a broad topic ban for her, per my suggested definition above, the article should not become or be used in any way as a platform for him to war back with her. This is better accomplished by linking his essay to the talk page and reviewing it to fix the problems. I took a once over of the article, where I find a lot of time being spent playing with refs and warring over how to snipe at each other. most of the article consists of pulling out Levay quotes and SYNTH'ing up an article. Frankly, locking the regs out for a week and bringing in one of the rescue squads would do more than anything else. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that ThuranX is on the right track, but I believe also that genetics of homosexuality is only one of several agenda’s Jokestress is pushing. Another such topic is conversion therapy. Conversion therapy (or reparative therapy) is a process by which some clinicians attempt to change homosexuals into heterosexuals (usually with some levels of homophobia and religiosity motivating the endeavour). In order to discredit him, Jokestress recently started pushing the agenda that Ken Zucker engages in such therapies (which he does not). Jokestress tried changing the definitions on conversion therapy to make it seem like he does , editing Ken Zucker’s bio to make it say he does , adding the same text to the bio of Susan Bradley (a colleague of Zucker’s)], and editing new pages to express the same idea yet again ]. Thus, I believe a broader topic ban is in order.

I believe that SashaNein is correct to note Jokestress’ obvious COI with regard to J. Michael Bailey. However, Jokestress’ off-wiki involvement includes many sex researchers, as noted above. Her personal website include copies of her own letters to scientists’ employers and others. Thus, this too suggests (to me) that a broader topic ban is in order.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that Joketress is doing the right thing. Can we take a breather and look into this before a topic ban? Bearian (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone ThuranX's change to the LeVay article. It is extremely unusual to attempt to deprive LeVay of the chance to respond to misleading and defamatory accusations about him. Giving LeVay the chance to do this is not a 'childish game' but a perfectly appropriate response to James's insertion of rubbish into the article about him. The fact that Andrea James is a wikipedia editor does not mean that she is above criticism. Skoojal (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have REblanked that part. The edit Skoojal refers to adds a violation of at least three policies: WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:SELFPUB. I am hitting 3RR, but my understanding of BLP is that that supersedes 3RR. Admins who aren't going to log off right after posting they're all over this are welcomed to review this. ThuranX (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you may be right or you may be wrong, but doing it this way in a matter this much disputed was not a good idea. As for the blanking, let's wait a while before deciding whether to undo it. Let uninvolved editors do what is necessary.

I've tried to work on some of this before, and i have my own opinion: everyone involved in the editing of these articles mentioned above has COI sufficient to disqualify them from the topic. This should not be read as endorsing any position. It is possible that all their negative criticisms of each other are all of them right to a certain extent--that is often the case in academic disputes. It is also possible that some of it for all of them is unjustified abuse--that is even more often the case in academic disputes. I suggest we leave them all to their own web sites, for we will not settle the issues here. But if Bearian wants to look into all of this and conduct a binding mediation of the issues, or an evaluation of just who should be banned from what, I can think of nobody better who is still with us. That's not formal procedure, but this is a model case for IAR. the alternative is to send this all to arbcom and wait three months for a result that will be no more reliable. DGG (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The No Personal attacks policy is not relevant. Invoking it here in effect means saying that James, as a wikipedia editor, is above any kind of criticism, which I find shocking. If an editor becomes involved in events and does something wrong, then it should be acceptable to mention this in articles about them (and especially in an article about someone that person has attacked - how is it OK for James to insert something defamatory into the article about LeVay but not OK to mention that the person thus defamed objected to it?). As regards BLP, it's up to ThuranX to say how specificially it is relevant in this case. I will be strongly inclinced to restore any deleted content. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that ThuranX appears to have made a personal attack against Simon LeVay on the talk page. Perhaps I have misinterpreted that comment, and perhaps ThuranX will be willing to retract it, but if not, then his involvement in this dispute perhaps becomes problematic. Skoojal (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is childish wikilawyering. One: LeVay makes a lot of disparaging claims about James in his piece. Two, what SELFPUB is perfectly clear about why it shouldn't be included. Three, one gay sex researcher/activist attacking another gay sex researcher/activist in his blog is a violation of BLP, plain and simple. Any of these three is enough to justify removal. Further, it's an out of place comment, placed in the sexual research section. Finally, the claim was made that this dispute was covered in reliable sources. Use those reliable sources to build a criticism section, do not link to what is little more than a blog. I'm not, as Skoojal keep hinting, opposed to Levay standing up for himself. I'm not opposed to Levay at all. However, That link and subsection are not the right way to advocate for his side, which we shouldn't be doing at all. I've made clear how to solve this problem, Skoojal is just not interested in paying attention. There are no personal attacks agaisnt Simon LeVay, this is a red herring to try to keep me from commenting. ThuranX (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by Skoojal

Further, as the history on that page shows, Skoojal is edit warring. I've provided multiple comments and explanations here and at the talk page for the removal of a smear piece against a living person, and without addressing the issues (other than to throughly dismiss them) He has three times in 24 hours restored them, even after being told to stop by user DGG. As such, I request a 24 hour block to prevent further edit warring. As it is a BLP, NPA, and SELFPUB violation, I will have to remove it again fr reasons I've repeatedly made clear, and do not want to see this distract from the major issues at the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask all of the involved parties to take a break, immediately, for at least 24 hours from this article. I'll block on sight otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You logged off after calling me an idiot, and now you're issuing threats against people who got involved here? Lock down the article if you really think there's a problem, to prevent sock use. Otherwise, this is just an intimidation technique designed to keep uninvolved editors from contradicting you as you let Jokestress off the hook. ThuranX (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never called anyone "an idiot" or anything close to it. Anyway, even if I log off you can always email me at my Hotmail account 24/7. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Jokestress is not off the hook yet. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right place for this?

It seems that this isn't just about whether Jokestress should be banned - several editors are accusing each other of serious misconduct in different articles, some of which are BLPs. Would it might be better for ArbCom to open a case on this, for all the evidence be weighed up, and for all the contributors' conduct to be considered? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Several editors asked me to get involved as a mediator. I've tried to keep all parties calm, short of actually banning or blocking anyone involved. Perhaps I got involved too late. It appears to me to be an off-wiki conflict cascading into a BLP edit war. I've insisted on following the rules as near as possibly without Wikilawyering. ArbCom may take months, and as User:DGG has pointed out, may not be a satisfactory process in this case. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While we are discussing this, I would certainly urge Bearian to go right ahead and do whatever blocks he thinks necessary to end disruption. DGG (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a final warning here to User:Skoojal. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Agnistus

I'd like to bring to your notice some harassment from an editor named Agnistus, who I came in contact with whilst editing the article Zakir Naik. What started off as a small edit war over what to include and what not in a WP:BLP, has now turned into a kind of mischief that he's begun playing on me. He has
a) stalked me to see what other article I was editing and then left behind a personally attacking comment on that article's talk page See
b) Asked me for my personal details (phone number and email ID) saying he wanted to talk to me on phone. See
c) Then, when I politely declined to divulge personal information , he said (in an innocent-looking manner) that he also wants to discuss some stuff regarding Islam (I think that was because I've mainly been editing Islam-relating articles out here and also because I am a Muslim). Thinking him to be a genuine inquisitor I agreed to answer his queries if I could, but he has now converted the discussion into a kind of argument and is posting my answers (from this section of my talk page) onto Zakir Naik's talk page, and is making now personal attacks towards me and Islam (See Edit summary -> in general. I've asked him to not spam that talk page with irrelevant information and proposed (in good faith) that we continue discussion on my talk page; I've even initiated it myself by replying to his comments on my own talk page and left a link to it on Zakir Naik's. But his latest comments on my talk page say he wants a kind of public debate (about Islam?) so that people may benefit from it See , AND he has also given me comment containing a block-warning for having made recent edits to Naik's article (please note that the edits in question are being discussed over on the talk-page and there has not been any consensus towards them. Agnistus has chosen not to take part in the discussion, and rather issue a warning (?) to me).
d) It also seems that he's had a history of making personal attacks against other co-editors on WP as well and has also been blocked for a 24 and 72-hour periods for such behavior .

Well, I guess I've written quite in a lot of words what could have been conveyed in a few; I hope someone takes notice of the situation and does what might be needful to end this harassment. Thanks for your help. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am partial to the dispute in question, I do think the vandalism warning is out of order in what is clearly a content dispute on a BLP. Elazeez, I've placed a note on your talk about this, but one should refrain from off-topic discussion on article talk pages, as it can often impede effective dispute resolution. Agnistus' previous behaviour for which he has been appropriately sanctioned is irrelevant unless there is evidence of further problematic behaviour. That said, I have requested that Agnistus refrain from making accusations of vandalism and that he participate more constructively in the discussion. ITAQALLAH 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I get your point Itaqallah. What started off as a polite reply to his quoting a SlashDot article (which actually spoke of some issue over depiction of images of Prophet Muhammed pbuh on WP) as a basis of making an accusation of vandalism against me just because I deleted polemic content (belonging to an op-ed from 'The Hindu' which compared Zakir Naik to a terrorist organization) that he had put into Naik's article, seems to have somehow irked him really bad. Maybe thats the reason he thought a personal attack towards me or Islam might put me off editing Naik's article and I'd let go of it. (And that is just my side of the story, if someone may call it so). Well, like I said above, it was he who originally approached me on my talk page(which was the ONLY place I intended to continue the dialogue with him) in an (innocent-sounding?) inquisitory tone saying he wanted to discuss something about Islam; while agreeing to help (personal user pages on Misplaced Pages are probably not the place for it, I realize now) I had no clue he'd go so far and turn it into a round of venting frustrations against Islam instead. His latest post on my talk page reads "I feel pity for you actually, to see you trapped in this cage(you can't leave it, since then you'll be executed!).", which I think just shows his desperation in getting a response to his red herrings on Naik's talk page (amazing co-incidence in his choice of font color as well BTW :-) as well as his non-neutral point of view when it comes to either Islam or Zakir Naik (which might imply that some of his activities may need to be kept an eye on...) ~ 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jablonski

Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I removed two items from this disambiguation page because they linked to articles that had been deleted for notability reasons. They keep getting re-added by various anonymous IP's, several of which have been blocked immediately thereafter as open proxies. One of these entries is about a computer programmer. Hmm.... I suspect socks. And last night a new anon IP vandalized my user page. So what can be done about this? These "editors" will not respond to my attempts to communicate. I'm bumping up on WP:3RR, so I'm bowing out of the edit war, but I think this page may need semi-protection and these IP's may need to be blocked. At the very least this page needs more eyes patrolling it, as we're either dealing with a sophisticated sock puppeteer or a bunch of meat puppets.

• 163.139.53.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - single edit "account", vandalism to my user page.
• 193.146.209.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - two edit "account", revert of 5th removal (my 3rd revert) and 6th removal by User:Duffbeerforme
• 80.191.160.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - single edit "account", revert of 4th removal by User:Caiaffa, now blocked as an open proxy.
• 72.52.220.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - two edit "account", both reverts of my 2nd and 3rd removal, now blocked as an open proxy.
• 72.148.164.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - four edit "account", revert of my 1st removal, vandalism to Arab, and a self-reverted vandalism to Nuthatch.

Steve Carlson 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR. The additions are in clear violation of the disambiguation page manual of style. swaq 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and fixing it for a 7th time. My interpretation of WP:VANDAL and WP:3RR is that this behavior is tendentious editing, but assuming good faith, not necessarily vandalism. Am I understanding that wrong? Steve Carlson 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article for a few days. Hopefully our IP-hopping friend will get bored and move on to something more productive. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that will help. I will keep an eye on the article after next week and re-report it here if it continues. Bracing for another personal attack on my user/talk page.... Steve Carlson 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. In this case with the obvious block avoidance I find it hard to assume good faith. swaq 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now this person has actually created an account, Billthebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has started making disruptive edits to other Jablonski-related articles:

• Jablonski diagram
• Jablonski by Pahls v. United States

Steve Carlson 20:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Billthebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked, but the assaults on my user page continue via an anon IP 203.162.3.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think my user page (and preemptively my talk page) needs temporary semi-protection. Steve Carlson 02:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now semi-protected my user page, so the vandalism there has stopped for the moment, so the focus has returned to anon-IP vandalization of Jablonski diagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now semi-protected) and most recently Wanda Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I think all articles linked from Jablonski are potentially at risk. Steve Carlson 04:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And now more vandalism to Wanda Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Bobthebill. I waited a long time before doing this one and it was reverted almost immediately. I am beginning to think that there really might be something behind this WikiAIBot thing he was bragging about. Wonder how long it will take this one to come after my user page? Steve Carlson 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 and his attacks

Libro0 has made several personal attacks against me, has abused the suspected sockpuppet system by branding me a sockpuppet because I disagreed with him (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy) and now has accused me of Wikistalking because I legitimately moved an article about an obscure soccer team from St. Matthew's to St. Matthew's (soccer team), replacing St. Matthew's with a disambiguation page with over two dozen common uses for St. Matthew's. (I should note the only reason I stumbled onto it is because I am keeping track of him making sure he isn't spreading any more lies!) I tried to get him to stop going after another user (and vice versa) and he brands me a sockpuppet. He would not even consider going into mediation with he other user! There seems to be no listening to reason with him. Apparently if you do something that upsets him you are a sockpuppet or worse and he'll make some passive aggressive uncivil comments about you too. This Libro0 is a problem user. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs? Bstone (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The sock puppet report is a bit hard to swallow. While there do appear to be a couple of potential "socks" of Baseball Card Guy (although even then it looks more like he forgot his password or something -- there are only 2-3 uncontroversial edits for each of those accounts), the vast majority of the editors accused appear to just be folks Libro has had disagreements with in the past.

If a CU is available, a quick way to resolve this might be to have one of them take a look at the SSP report. If it comes back the way I think it will, then that would be some damning evidence against Libro (and if I am surprised by the result, it could vindicate Libro and be pretty damning to Your Radio Enemy) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your 'monitoring' of me is what got you into trouble, so why keep getting yourself into more trouble. I left the bballcard pages. Yet this and this showed up. I underwent relentless harrassment here, here, and here. I got to the point I had to get my userpage protected. The sock report shows still more stalking. Jay here seems to think there is a whole slough of people that I have had disagreements with. Hardly. What has transpired at the bbcard pages is that I have been prevented repeatedly from making corrections and adding information. I am the only user there that has chosen to engage in proper discussions. Valid statemnets regarding policy and sources meet with the ususal comments of 'you are being uncivil' and avoiding a clear focus on content. I have been the only one to compromise. As I have said before, any review of my edit history only shows that communication and compromise are solid character traits of mine. Granted I have always dealt with legitimate users that are willing to discuss policy and content in a ratioinal manner. I cannot say this for the accused. I believe it would be better to simply review the edit histories than to provide 500 diffs here. Libro0 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On further review, there is definitely merit to the sockpuppet report, although I still wonder if a couple of the users were just caught in the net. We'll see how than pans out when it is reviewed by an admin. --Jaysweet (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the SSP report. There is clearly socking going on here, but I tend to doubt The Radio Enemy and Die Profis are involved. Maybe I am wrong, though, so hopefully we'll hear more opinions.

One thing I would like to make clear is that even if TRE is a sock and he was stalking you, his change of St. Matthew's to a disambiguation page was absolutely correct. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock report with broader issues at hand

I would like to try to get some Admin input to this sock report sooner rather than later. I have outlined my position and concerns there.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lynch2000s

Lynch2000s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I'm not sure where to report this, so I'll post here. This isn't really serious, but the user keeps adding unnesecary piping (|) to links and italisizing where it isn't nessecary. The user has already been told not to do so, three times, and likely has stopped, but there remains about three dozen articles in which this is still present. I'm reluctant to use any rollback, because this might be good-faith, but undoing takes an hour. Please advise, and try to help out if you can. I have already told the user this absolutely isn't nessecary, except when italisizing publication titles, etc. Thanks. ~AH1 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the user's edits are OK, the user appears to be a sockpuppet of Lynch1000s (talk · contribs). Thanks. ~AH1 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also of note, dozens of overwikification edits have been reverted after posting the first request to refraim from doing so see the users talk page User talk:Lynch2000s - most of the reverted edits have not been listed. Dbiel 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked Lynch2000s indefinitely for block evasion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is acceptable as long as you clearly explain any non-obvious reason for reverting. — CharlotteWebb 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the block of the sockpuppeter be restarted (Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy)? Ian¹³/t 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo and JJL

A rather difficult situation has been playing out on the Talk:Taekwondo page over recent months, and I'd welcome administrators' comments on how best to proceed:

Context: The Taekwondo article has a history section in which theories concerning the martial art's origin are cited: that taekwondo is of Korean origin, that it's of Japanese origin, and that its origins are a mingling of influences. Edit wars and protracted debates have focused on this section, with the two extreme positions being represented by User:JJL and User:Manacpowers. JJL asserts that taekwondo is essentially Japanese karate and that no reliable sources say otherwise; Manacpowers asserts that taekwondo is Korean, and that sources support that.

Problem: Gaming the system. While neither have comported themselves well, JJL has been particularly disruptive by questioning the appropriateness and reliability of nearly every source that presents the Korean position. This usually takes the form of asserting that the source doesn't meet WP:RS, doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV, that its author is unqualified or biased, or that its inclusion is inappropriate under a host of Misplaced Pages guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, WP:NONENG, etc.), sometimes a bit rudely. While raising questions is fine, the volume and intensity of such questions (and the effort required to respond to them) has ground productive editing nearly to halt and to me suggests an effort to game the system.

I, User:Omnedon, User:Nate1481 and other editors have sought compromise and have tried our best to accommodate JJL and to address the points he raises. The position JJL supports is presented neutrally in the page along with the others and is backed by reliable sources, some of which I researched and added myself. However, he won't stop debating and seems to have as his goal the preferred placement of the Japanese view above the opposing "myth". I'm happy to do anything I can to ensure a fair and well-cited presentation, but months of discussion and two attempts at mediation have so far been fruitless, and he seems no closer now to acknowledging opposing theories than when we began.

What is an appropriate step at this point? I welcome any assistance! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid things are now turning a bit hostile, with JJL trying to characterize me as a belligerent. (The latest is in this thread.) Things are certainly spiraling and I'm at a loss to know how to proceed! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please!?! Official mediation has been tried twice (once stalled, once a party refused to participate) and I am running out of ideas, informal refereeing has been attempted by myself and Huwmanbeing but I have been sucked in to the debate to some extent, we can't get both sides to see use as neutral at the same time, if we say some one might have a point, the response it that we are obviously espousing the POV exclusively. Protection expires on 1st of August and an edit war will happen unless we can get some help. This has previously spilled onto other Korean and Japanese martial arts articles and likely will again. --Nate1481(/_c) 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I unarchived this because the user came to my talk page looking for help but it's not really my area of expertise, so I'd like some more eyes on it. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended that the major parties take the three sections on the disputed historical origins and split those out into three subpages, one per major origin theory / history viewpoint. This seems like it would allow all three historical viewpoints to be described in more detail in a less confrontational manner than fighting over it on the main Taekwondo page... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV fork and certainly is not a solution. You need to follow the normal dispute resolution process. If negotiation fails you try mediation, if mediation fails, the only other option is ArbCom. Admins really shouldn't start weighing in (in our capacity as admins) in a content dispute. --Selket 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POV content fork - there are competing theories regarding the issue, and there's nothing wrong with separate articles for different theories. Asserting that admins can't informally mediate or suggest options like this is bizarre... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there were two separate thoughts that I tried to get into that post. I did not do a good job distinguishing them. My apologies for a very confusing post. What I meant was that (1) POV forks are bad and splitting the history of TKD into three articles each on one of the three different, competing theories about the origin is a POV fork. It also doesn't solve the problem because something must still be in the TKD article. Also any dispute about whether sources are reliable will now be spread over four pages rather than one. The other thing (2) that I was trying to say was not in reference to you, Georgewilliamherbert. I just meant that we should not take sides in the content dispute as admins. We should either act as admins and remain neutral in this particular dispute, or take a position but not in our capacity as admins. We should not jump in and say "I'm an admin and this source is reliable", which I feel some posters above may have been requesting. --Selket 23:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:Weight tell us to keep the disputed histories together and give them unbiased sections with appropriate weight? If there is a dispute over the history, then it should be on the page with an explanation over the claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We have two key problems, JJL frequently refuses to allow sources that other editors propose stating that the are either not RS or just "they are not as good as mine so mine trump them and so they can not be used" (which sounds suspiciously like the spirit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Secondly Manacpowers is just as stubborn in his views and seem to grasp at anything that might support him (e.g quoting the 1st failed mediation) regardless of when others tried to explain he has misunderstood a procces/policy/guideline. Both users have something to contribute, but someone who is actually neutral (and to be honest dose not care or know about the subject) and in an official position (in part to help satisfy Manacpowers 'rules' demands) is needed to help clarify points and, to be honest, act as somthing of a judge on procces/policy/guideline intepritaion. This is why mediation might have helped, but as this had been formally attempted once, Manacpowers felt the issue had been dealt with and he had 'won' (hence demonstrating he had not understood the process). If an uninvolved admin could informally mediate it might prevent the need for the rigmarole of an abcom case, which will not resolve the content dispute (except by default), and may well result in the loss of useful editors. --Nate1481(/_c) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One suggestion of a history article (with all the theories) so more detail could be included, has been made, the reaction gives an idea of the problems. --Nate1481(/_c) 09:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, someone in authority who could and would mediate WP:RS issues could be very useful here. I started a mediation process (not all parties joined), started an RfC, went to the RSN...then someone else tried mediation again (not all parties joined). JJL (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to come and comment on this as I protected the page and so on, but I really don't have a lot that I can do to resolve the situation. I only got to 9th Kup in Taekwando and don't have any real knowledge of the background. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

robj1981

why is robj1981 allowed to edit???? he seems to constantly be in trouble with other user. he is not a very nice editor. he is uncivil editor who is always on civility patrol. can you make him go away already. He runis everything he touces and is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem. is this community so blind they can't see thru this stuff? He is always running to ANI telling on people and doesnt even tell people when he does it. very uncivil. he has 28 days left on his ban to serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.42.104 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on "is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem" I think it safe to assume that the above IP is a block evading sock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm looking into it a bit more I'm reasonably sure this is either User:SLJCOAAATR 1 or one of his friends meatpuppeting for him. (See his talk page to see what's been going on). I've hardblocked the IP for a week, which is a bit harsh I know but this sillyness needs to stop.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

i have nothig to do with SLJ saying u banning my ip was unjust and rude. i am aware of situation. User:RobJ1981 and User:A Man In Black may very well be meatpuppets of each other. they have both edited 369 different aticles together yet theyve only talked a few times?!?!??!

369 articles in common- noitce they never disagree in AFD

Also look here- amib nominates, rob votes to support in 7 minutes. clikc here alot of fishiness going on here 70.211.199.121 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, Rob wanted to keep the article, while AMIB wanted to chuck it. By the way, I have nearly 300 pages in common with RobJ1981. I also have 364 pages in common with Theresa knott. Does that mean we're meatpuppets? Of course not. I've never even talked to her before. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock chasing

Been chasing Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Way4743 all day. Is there any recourse for us here besides what I've been doing? Can we find IPs and rangeblock? Tan ǀ 39 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you try an IP check at Misplaced Pages:RFCU#Requests for IP check? Also, is this just on one article so you could semi-protect for a bit, or is it all over the place? --barneca (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected the most frequently vandalized article, but it's a bit random. I haven't taken it to RFCU because, well, that page isn't very user-friendly. Maybe I'll give it a shot; it's a bit intimidating. Tan ǀ 39 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "request for IP check" part is easier than the "normal" RFCU part; just create a subsection and follow the yellow brick road directions here. --barneca (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate when request directions are so damn specific. Can't just link the SSP page, gotta break out all the users with the CU template. Ugh. Tan ǀ 39 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have to link *every* sock with the CU template... you can list three or four and then link to the SSP page, saying "and numerous others listed here...". Though the more you list on the CU request the better (easier for the CUs to do their job that way). It's not that big a deal - if I have a lot of socks known, I cut and paste a line with the blank CU template and then just fill in the usernames for each line. I can do 20-30 users in a minute with two browser tabs and that setup... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you tell anyone I said this, I'll deny it, but occasionally if I just can't face creating an RFCU report, I've mentioned an SSP case on a checkuser's talk page, instead of filing a report, with mixed results. Depends on the checkuser you choose, their mood, how nicely you ask, and the results of a random number generator.

Hey, tell you what. If you haven't done it already, do you want me to do it? --barneca (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I may not be Xeno, but I have my moments. --barneca (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MountCan, probable sock of banned User:House1090, causing trouble again

I requested a checkuser from Alison a few weeks ago on this account, result was: "likely." I didn't take action because it seemed like he was doing no harm at the time, but he's acting up again, so requesting an indef based on his contributions today, particularly to User:Haha169's talk page. Thanks, Amerique 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more information on User:MountCan: MountCan's edits at Chino Hills, California are very similar to those of House's sockpuppet User:Ie909: This one yesterday compared to this one on November 7, 2007. The pattern of edits try to change things about the San Bernardino, California area. His edits seem fairly consistently involving that geographical area and have the same poor grammar, like his entry on my talk page here, as House. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check also Alanray's talk page:User_talk:Alanraywiki#Chino_Hills_Vandalism. This guy House/MountCan is probably a kid, but he's a nuisance that continually makes unsubstantiated accusations and mainspace messes. The rationale for the prior ban still holds. Amerique 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do me a user cheak to stop this rummer type sort thing I am not House MountCan (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling this one  Confirmed based on updated evidence; geolocation, checkuser evidence, and the stunning similarity to the already-blocked User:Salcan including IP range and various other technical details - Alison 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alison. First admin to uphold the prior ban and indef MountCan gets a California barnstar from me! Amerique 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Norman Francis

There's an edit war going on over at Norman Francis between two anons. One is adding unsourced personal opinion and the other is removing it, neither using edit summaries or discussing the changes on the Talk page, just reverting back and forth. I've issued a 3RR warning to both of them, and a BLP warning to the one inserting the personal opinion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 4 days. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Annoying Elspeth Monro vandal is still vandalizing

I keep coming across this person who likes to use Misplaced Pages as a personal game. They vandalize mainly talk pages and user pages, create socks, then accuse their own socks of being Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before placing a phony indefblock tag on. They also add Elspeth Monro sock templates to the talk pages of already blocked vandals and sockpuppeteers. This is the most recent edit I've noticed, by chance . It's annoying, frustrating, and obnoxious that this person is allowed to just keep vandalizing at will, building up their fake vanity list of blocked socks, etc. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look briefly through the edit histories of the IPs and socks you'll find stuff like this . Each sock leads to another sock or IPsock as they all put fake templates on each others pages. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

check this out as well. Thingg 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

if this user has alread ybeen indef-blocked, wat more ccan be done??? Has anyone tried issuing a warning? Smith Jones (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think the link posted above by Thingg is the same person I'm mentioning. I could be wrong though. I don't know what issuing warnings will accomplish in the face of blatant socks, both IP and username. What can be done is someone can go through the current raft of socks (and I assure you there are probably hundreds out there by now) and block them and consider blocking the IPs he has used, perhaps even a rangeblock. Perhaps someone with checkuser can help. It's time to deal with this clown. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

An edit warring IP account

Can someone look into the activities of 66.225.206.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I thought it was one 3RR report but its actually about a half dozen 4RR, 5RR and 6RR reports spread across several articles. The IP has been tagged as a sockpuppet. The user account supposedly attached to this IP has many blocks for edit warring already. Seal Clubber (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition. Now User:Johan Rachmaninov has appeared to carry on where the IP noted above left off. This user has also been blocked for 3RR violations. Either the original sock tag was added to the IP or the 2 user accounts with the block history for 3RR violation are the same editor. Seal Clubber (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct place to report this is that way → Tiptoety 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jrmscpeople

This user has an apparent history of creating nonsense pages and hoaxes, most recently here: Jezreel V., a page that has already been speedied twice, once as vandalism. Continuously removes speedy delete tags despite being asked not to. Has been blocked for similar behavior in the past. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this user, largely because one of the previous incarnations of the article (Jezreel Veradio) was speedied by myself repeatedly until I was forced to protect it from recreation and block the editor. Even earlier it was deleted at Jezreel H. Veradio by another two admins for nonsense/vandalism/hoax.

From what I have gathered the creator is this Jezreel Veradio who has decided to create a false identity on wikipedia (considering the biographical details change wildly from creation to creation). It is quite possible Veradio is an actor in some regard, but the sheer number of obviously false additions (i.e. claims to being cast in Blindness (film)) means it's impossible to possibly find any semblance of fact from the fiction.

This article will probably be deleted as well, considering that all evidence supports its removal (along with the same Jezreel (actor) article) and while this user may have made useful contributons in the past, "may" due to that it's impossible to tell what is valid from this editor, that for the good of the project an indef blocking is probably in order. –– Lid 04:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• May want to check the actions of this IP as well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Canton and Colbert

Apparently, our friend Stephen Colbert has instructed his minionsviewers to vandalize pages about towns named Canton. I have most of them open in tabs, but I would appreciate some eyes since I will have to go to sleep in a little bit. J.delanoy_adds 04:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Tiptoety 04:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty sleepy. seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't actually instruct them. He called Canton, Georgia "crappy" and that made the mayor mad. So he apologized and than started ranting about Canton, Kansas calling it "shitty". Misplaced Pages was not mentioned once. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I don't actually watch the show, but I know about how he is with us so I guess I just jumped to conclusions. I'll try not to panic like this in the future. J.delanoy_adds 04:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And I take it none of those predictions about articles to be vandalized, supposedly based on "inside" information, actually panned out? Baseball Bugs 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Might want to archive this thread before some reader actually does vandalize these pages. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale

• Radioinfoguy has been blocked 31 hours for sockpuppetry, all confirmed alternate accounts have been blocked indef.

Read the story how Gwen Gale has, in my opinion, several times, abused her administrative power here. If you don't see my reasons for this post, then the AfD page has been deleted, or blanked. Check it's history. If the page is blanked, or deleted and restarted, I respectfully ask an admin to restore my comments to the AfD page, as I feel the history, leading up to my nomination for deletion, is important. Thank you.

If I have made a mistake in the way I have nominated Joe Kleon for deletion, please correct it and leave my comments intact. Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just at a glance, it seems that Gwen has bent over backwards to try and help you get this article up and running, even admitting that it might not be completely notable, but she has a soft spot for broadcasters and would try and help it stay on the wiki. You trying to delete it now seems to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point, in all honesty. Dayewalker (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the AfD as a pointy poor faith nom that was entirely a criticism of Gwen, with no reason given to delete. I don't see at all how Gwen has abused her admin tools here. Time to drop it and move on perhaps. Kevin (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question - the previous AfD speedily deleted. What were the claims in this AfD, as per I not being able to read? It would be helpful to find on what grounds people responded (beyond the closing). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The were no contributors except the nom and Hoary fixing the formatting. The whole thing was a long rant about Gwen mostly, but comments such as Clearly this article passes the Misplaced Pages notability test, and Such non-notable people such as a number one rated radio personality with over 20 years experience, heard at one time on CNN worldwide radio, heard collectively, as a network radio announcer, in over 40 states, published as a writer in a weekly magazine with 60,000+ circulation, for 7 years, someone who has recorded and interviewed over 100 very notable rock musicians, someone who has had their photography repeatedly published, for years, in large daily newspapers and magazines, is clearly not notable. (took this as sarcasm) showed that the nom was not a good faith request for deletion. Kevin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you say in the the AfD, I disagree with your placing it within an AfD, and for good measure I disagree with the deletion of the AfD as well (particularly after I'd wasted several minutes of my life formatting it properly). Anyway, your main beef is with Gwen Gale. My view on this is close to Dayewalker's, but it's possible that we're both wrong and you are right. If you're serious about this, there are various avenues that are open to you. However, I suggest that you first state your point about the article (not her) as dispassionately, impersonally and persuasively as you can at Talk:Joe Kleon. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Much of what was said was wrong. Joe misrepresented what Gwen had said and done. He claimed meanings that were not there. He critisised her for properly following procedure. Gwen did not create the article because she thought Joe Kleon was notable but to try and help him create an article free of the coi problems that existed in the first version. An act of kindness that he responds to like this. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Submitter, you really should have notified Gwen of this thread. She has a right to present her side of the story. I've done it for you as I don't see a notice on her talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, I spent at least half a day researching this person and rewriting his article from scratch so it would be encyclopedic (admins can see what the deleted version was like). Seven weeks later User:Clevelandmusic24 (likely an alternate account of not named by me for BLP reasons User:Radioinfoguy) added this section about Kleon's non-notable photography and this brought back the old, highly critical attention from other editors. Then User:Clevelandmusic24 showed up on my talk page. Now, after filing that pointy AfD which was deleted straight off by another admin, he's shown up here as User:Radioinfoguy. I tried to help, I guess editors may understand why I don't want to anymore and am not too thrilled about having done to begin with. Whatever y'all want to do about these accounts and this article is ok by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify Gwen of this thread. If you took 2 seconds to look at her talk page, you would see that. Not the brightest bulb, are you? Radioinfoguy (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. And I'm not, either. I spent few seconds looking on the talk page, and another few looking in your list of contributions, and I didn't see it. You notified her of the AfD, but as far as I can see, you didn't notify her of this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Radioinfoguy also claims that he wanted the AfD deleted as well. seicer | talk | contribs 11:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By "it" he means the article, not the AfD, which Kevin deleted as pointy. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or is Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs) singularily unpleasant? Unfounded and personal attacks a-go-go on Gwen on this page, plus this bit of nastiness and this one plus the strange "delete this article or add my choice of self-aggrandisement to it" stroppy demands. I'm feeling inclined to get rid of him permanently. Any objections? ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from me.

He's angry. Yes, there's no reason to agree to his every whim, but there's also no reason to taunt him. He hasn't vandalized anything. Cut him some slack and aim to decrease tensions rather than increase them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While he might not have vandalized anything he hardly seems to be a constructive editor. More importantly, he is disrupting the project.--Ave Caesar (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Better to let it blow over rather than inflame things more. Kevin (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to block just yet. This POINTy vendetta against Gwen is disappointing, irritating, and baffling; but the user otherwise appears to be contributing in good faith (and continued to do so in other areas even during this incident). If he doesn't back off of this one pretty soon, a short clueblock might be in order, but I don't see any need to get rid of him permanently. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion (solely to prove that it shouldn't be deleted) is a mind-boggling abuse of process, though strangely I've seen it done before. If he can heed a stern warning not to engage in such stunts in the future, I see no reason for Joe not to continue editing, though it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to ask him to comment on the talk page from now on rather than editing the article directly. — CharlotteWebb 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I asked him to do a month and a half ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I talked to Joe and neither of us want to have a war, or get involved with crap like this. It just seems that a few people have it in for him and are not allowing things that are acceptable in other articles. The double standard is baffling.

I can understand being angry when someone asks for answers and gets none and asks for citing of Wiki poplicy as to why sources are not notable and gets no answer. Why is it so hard to address these points? Gwen has removed sources from large metropolitan newspapers and says they are only "online pictures." They are newspapers like Toledo Blade, Canton Repository, Alliance Review and magazines like Classic Rock Magazine. Read their wiki pages and tell me if they are only online pictures. Please explain why these sources do not show at least some notability as a photographer. They all have wide circulation and meet the criteria for Wiki sources.

Go back and look at the photography section, that was removed. Are the Sport Karate Magazine scans any different from the Scene Magazine scan Gwen added herself at the beginning of the article? Nope. However, to her that one is fine and the ones I added are not. Why was it wrong to follow her example? When I asked for an explaination, she gave none. Make sense? Sounds like a double standard to me. Wouldn't showing notability as a photographer entail having your photos published repeatedly in widely circulated magazines and newspapers and used by notable musicians in their music releases? Hoary hinted that a book needs to be published and reviewed to be notable, as a photographer. Can I see a cite of Wiki policy about this? The photography section, to me, only adds to the overall notability of the subject. He has earned citing and been published in various acceptable sources, from various aspects of his career (radio, recording, photography). There are so many articles that don't have a half the sources. Why is this article such a problem?

Hoary also said in the original AfD that anyone can edit the article, including radioinfoguy. When that happened and I added a few lines about his photography, tags are put up and Gwen threatens to AfD her article. Seems pretty consusing to me. The photo edits I did were very neutral and factual. If they were not, why not clean them up and offer suggestions to help? Isn't that what is supposed to be done? I thought this article may be allowed to grow and develop, asWikipedia says is their goal, for new articles, but it seems that this will not happen, with this article. The photography section, combined with the article that Gwen wrote, proves notability, without a doubt, according to Wiki guidelines.

One more thing. Since Gwen removed the photography section, why does she insist in keeping the COI tag? The article, as it sits right now, is only her work. I do not understand this.

I respectfully ask for answers to these questions, with citing of Wiki policy. Thanks. 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). The COI and notability tags were added by another editor. I think they should stay until you stop trying to use the article for self-promotion. The topic Joe Kleon fails WP:BIO. However, you have some borderline notability as a recording engineer and former local DJ in northern Ohio. As for the local Scene magazine scan (which is on your personal website), I told you weeks ago that I had stretched the sources somewhat in trying to make the article whole and encyclopedic for you. Truth be told, the scan indeed doesn't belong as a source in the article at all, I only threw it in because it filled things out a bit, I was struggling to support any notability at all for you as a music journalist and I thought it would at least show some evidence you've done locally published music journalism (which in itself is not notable) and hoped someone might have fun reading it. Online copies of your photos are not sources and whatever you have done as a radio and recording person does not shed notability on your photography. Taking snaps of famous or noted folks is not in itself notable, even if the photographs are later published in local newspapers or used in marketing/packaging materials for independent music releases. To show notability as a photographer, one would need to provide citations showing significant coverage (which is to say discussion) of your photography by independent and reliable sources, or meaningful awards, or exhibitions. I didn't find any when I researched you a month and a half ago and I didn't find any today. I think you either don't understand Misplaced Pages's notability, sourcing, consensus, discussion, alternate account, civility and disruption policies, among others, or don't want to abide by them, though maybe it's a bit of both. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima - block required

Blocked for 8 days. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has continually made accusation after accusation; each meritless in their own way, and demands everyone retracts their statements or strikes them when he is the only user who disagrees. He filed a WQA against S Dean Jameson - no editor or admin felt it warranted any action or warnings whatsoever because it was meritless. He disagreed and it remained open for sometime. I closed the WQA with a similar view . He refuses to let the issue go, as can be seen at the bottom of my talk page, and has declared () that Risker is abusing authority because of commenting on the situation at my talk page and asking him to stop being disruptive. It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go and will continue to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground. His block log speaks for itself. I request he be blocked for no less than 6 months. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any diffs here. I'm pretty sure this request won't go anywhere without some of those to show the alleged misbehaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding them - but his last 20ish contributions contain the bulk of it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, meritless accusations below by Ottava Rima. This is probably the first occasion I've interacted with S Dean Jameson, and here he is claiming bias at every single editor and admin who has tried to deal with the WQA, including myself, who closed it as a complete third party. His behaviour continues to be blatantly disruptive - Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and the only defending i'm doing is by invoking the DefendEachOther meatball for his inappropriate conduct re: Risker. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked the user to retract his closing of a wikiquette request here with the comments "Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input" and "I find that the claims made here are meritless, so I'm of the opinion that it be dismissed. As the filing party has so far not agreed at all with the similar opinions expressed here, I'm closing this as stuck". The reason why can be found here. I believe that the user made false allegations about my feelings on the matter, did not actually read the discussion, and allowed his previous relationship with User:S. Dean Jameson to conflict with his ability to be unbiased in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also- "It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go" As you can see from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, et al, I have repeatedly attempted to "let the matter go" but the person Ncmvocalist is defending refuses to. The user he is defended, i.e. Jameson, even criticized a user here for giving me a barnstar for my constant asking for people to stop using personal attacks in disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(with ECx2)Crap. I hate finding myself on the same side as NCMVocalist, who I'd rather have nothing to do with. However, OR's behavior as regards all things Wilhelmina Will has been questionable; in fact, I pointed this out in the thread about WW that was just here on AN/I, and suggested that OR needed some time away from things. I'm not sure 6 months is right, but given that following the WW debacle, OR ran right to swinging wildly to see who s/he could take down in revenge or anger, I'd certainly support a one or two week block to ensure that OR returns to the project with a level head and no more interest in these sort of tit-for-tat antics. Let's prevent more needless drama.

Further, as seen post-EC, OR's insistence that s/he is right absolutely is more than mildly irritating, and this isn't the first time i've seen her throw that attitude around. It's disruptive in and of itself; every time OR sees a response that doesn't agree, the saem talking points and self-righteous indignation appear. everyone's a biased involved party, of course by nature of getting involved in the previous thread as uninvolved folks, and soon we'll run out of such 'uninvolved folks'. Block to prevent gaming as well.ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I "right" about? That I believe there is a problem between Jameson and I? And that I sought help via Wikiquette? Otherwise, how is your comment on topic? I am sure you will try to say this is me further trying to be "right" because you established a logical loop that would critique any response as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were right about anything, I said you 'insist that you are right'. there's a difference. 2+2=5, and I insist that's true! doesn't make it true, but I'm insisting I'm right. Similarly, you continue to insist in multiple venues that you're right about whatever the topic is, no matter how much else is said by however many others. Look at that WQA, or the WW thread above. lots of people say A, you say 17, and insist that it's always been and will always be 17, no matter how many people say A. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question, are you saying that I would not understand my complaint and why I filed it better than others reading it? It seems to be what you just stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment redacted Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In no fucking way am I an associate of his, beyond noting him in an AN/I thread and commenting there, and possibly in the related articles. This is the gaming the system that I'm talking about. EVERYONE who ever talks to each other is an associate, thus exploitable by OR to avoid the spotlight on her behavior. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, I suggest cooling down a bit. This discussion is getting a little heated.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the above comment in order to further that end. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A glance through ThuranX's edit history shows he's in a different universe. But I see nothing that would prevent an association, other than the fact we're both here to edit an encyclopedia, and it appears we don't edit any articles in common. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I have already redacted the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I too find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Ncmvocalist's actions on the Wikiquette thread. Ottava Rima complained on Ncmvocalist's talk page that he did not have the authority to close the thread because he was not an administrator, so I piped in and said that, as an administrator, I agreed with the close, and asked OR to stop as his behaviour was becoming disruptive. In response, Ottava Rima tried to bully me by implying that I was acting improperly, threatening to start a thread here about my "inappropriate" actions and hinting that admins have been desysopped for such behaviour. It seems that welcoming other editors onto my talk page, and having them ask me to comment on articles, somehow renders me biased in favour of such editors in Ottava Rima's mind. Unfortunately for some who have visited my page, that is not the case at all.

Ottava Rima has some skill at editing and has proven helpful on some articles, but has also been involved in multiple tendentious situations. I would like to hear from some of the people who have found his editing to have been helpful (or some who have benefited from his "mediation work" that he referred to in his post to my talk page) before considering any type of sanction other than to simply say "cool off". Risker (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diff and quotation where I said that his closing was improper because he was not an admin. I wrote the section, I've reread the section, and I am unable to find it. Also, there was "cooling off" as per User:Fritzpoll, where I stopped posting responses to Jameson, but I can show where he refused to do the same, and his associates attacked my character in Wikiquette. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two consecutive posts by you, the first demanding to know if Ncmvocalist was an admin, the second insisting that he remove the closure of the Wikiquette thread or "if needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close". Are we done here? Risker (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two different points. I hope that clarifies things. Also - stating that I would apply for an admin would mean to go to AN or AN/I, asking for an admin to act, as if I were to act, that would be edit warring. Knowing if he was an admin or not would be important to prevent possible Wheel Warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this and the related threads, I strongly suggest that you learn to stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's block log reads like a seven-month long train wreck. Their most recent unblock was on June 23rd, and ironically reads "User has committed themselves to collegial and non-tendentious editing - ergo block is no longer needed". On the basis of the interactions here and elsewhere, Ottava Rima's commitment doesn't seem to have stuck, because this whole interaction has been less than collegial and tendentious. I am therefore blocking Ottava for 8 days, or twice 96 hours. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been involved in two lengthy arguments with this user, the aforementioned WW thread and the one above under "Raul's reply". I must admit, that it can be rather frustrating to debate with this individual especially when they say things like: Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC). Support block and agree with Guy's assessment. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Per xeno. A special thanks to Nandesuka for being bold and tackling the issue for what it was, and preventing damage for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has suggested that his unblock request is just an attempt to get attention rather than to get unblocked (deliberate disruption, it seems). Frankly, I think he's been much luckier than other editors in terms of the circumstances leading to his blocks - in the past 3 months alone, on multiple occasions, he was counselled by several users about his poor conduct. It doesn't seem to be sinking in, even now. All avenues of trying to get him to understand (& stop) have been exhausted (except through mentoring, if anyone is willing and able to handle it). In the absence of any such agreement, assurance or understanding by Ottava Rima (prior to the current block expiring), then I note that serious consideration needs to be given to deferring to Moreschi's initial indef-block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: after seeing my above comment, he has made the following edit(s).

• (This will be my only comment on this situation.) I completely agree with Vocalist here. I expended a lot of "WikiEnergy" defending myself against Rima's baseless accusations the past two days, and it appears many other editors have been treated similarly over the course of Rima's time on the project. I think an indef-block, until that time when Rima will commit to stopping this type of behavior, is wholly appropriate. S. Dean Jameson 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Community patience exhausted; proposal of infinite block

Er... S. Dean Jameson, OR did commit to stopping this type of behavior at their latest block, you know. I think he's used up all his chances and all our good faith and all our patience, and I suggest an infinite block. Yes, infinite, not indefinite. Indefinite was last time, and he quickly reneged on it. We've surely expended enough wiki-energy on this user. Also, note that not even "infinite" is the end of the road; the possibility of eventually appealing to ArbCom will remain, provided there's no socking.
I've removed the "resolved" template and propose that the user be temporarily unblocked to take part in the discussion of an infinite block. (To edit this thread only, not talkpages etc; enough with the talkpage attacks already.) For background, see these ANI threads:

20 June:

23 April, 2008, "Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima:

21 April, 2008:

21 March, 2008, "User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus":

See also many a talkpage, recently, User talk:Ncmvocalist, a good example of OR's standard manner of communication with other editors: .

Bishonen | talk 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

The only reason I oppose this right now is that OR doesn't seem to grasp the wrongdoing for which he/she is blocked. If we Indef Ban now, I have every confidence this user will return as a SOCK, and will continue socking. The user is too committed to 'the truth', currently, As such, mentoring offers far more hope that we can get OR to 'get it', and at least understand WHY an indef ban is being proposed. If OR rejects or fails to seriously engage in a mentoring process, then we've truly exhausted all options, OR can appeal to ArbCom, and then the indef ban can set in. ThuranX (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was looking for evidence that OR has been prepared to acknowledge the valid concerns raised numerous times over the weeks, but can't see any; feel free to point out any I missed. All I see here is a troublesome user who is taking more time to keep in line than can be justified from the benefit of their contributions, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly support this. Not only does Rima not acknowledge any wrong-doing, but there seems to be a martyr-complex thing going on. Rima composed a "poem" about this, and has been soapboxing about how s/he's been wronged. It's apparent to me (in reply to ThuranX above) that OR will never "get" why what he does is wrong. Extending the community's good will any further in dealing with this "bad actor" is not necessary in my view. S. Dean Jameson 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is a fear that OR may disrupt Misplaced Pages whatever course of action is taken. Which then is the lesser of two evils? The choice seems to be between further (arguably good faith/unintentional) disruption of the type documented ad nauseam in the AN/I archives, and presumed new intentional/bad faith disruption such as sockpuppetry. To me, it seems like a logical error for the community to choose not to ban OR based on a bad faith view of them. Perhaps a ban accompanied by friendly advice and counselling about where OR went wrong? I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be qualified to offer that, but it does leave the door open for future positive contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, he shouldn't be unblocked. We can have a discussion transcluded between pages if necessary, though. Frankly, I think the following alternative remedy would be worth considering, and I doubt it is something that would be too different to an ArbCom remedy either.
  • Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. Should Ottava Rima resume editing Misplaced Pages after this period, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist Ottava Rima in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.
• Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

thought: It's ridiculous that all of this (recent stuff) got started because OR decided to stick up for WW, who just got the book thrown at her. If OR had reread what had been said about WW, all of this could have been avoided. I notice that Kim Bruning is talkign to OR on OR's talk page. SHould we see if that can yield a change in behavior? ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, Kim asked OR, "What was it this time?" OR responded with more obfuscation, denial, and blame. I'm not arguing with you, ThuranX, but just pointing out how this current "interaction" seems to be simply more of the same. S. Dean Jameson 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw, And i think we all know how this will turn out, but in the interest of avoiding more sockmaters, I made the suggestion. ThuranX (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support for the "infinite" ban. This is not for "incivility" in the usual sense, because I oppose the usual sense, but for threatening, hostile, and really quite schizophrenic lability. It's hostile to hateful to loving to hostile to complimentary to hostile, and lots and lots of pretense. It's impossible to edit with or near such a user, and the user himself is intent on gathering attention. This is poisonous. Geogre (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User':Fourtildas

Well, it's day two of my adminship and I'm already in over my head! Yikes... All right, so I need some advice from experienced admin-folk. Here's the story. I was contacted on IRC by a user who was the brunt of a rather nasty personal attack by User:Fourtildas (diff) after warning him for vandalism on Israel. I read through his talk page and decided not to immediately block at the time, left him with a level-3 no personal attacks warning, and resolved to look through his contribs later. Well, it's later now and I'm starting to think, just after reading through a few, that I probably should have blocked. He has been frequenting the Talk:Israel page with borderline uncivil comments and today went so far to describe Jews as "totally disgusting" (diff). I'm not sure how to proceed. L'Aquatique 08:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you did fine--just remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. You might want to follow up your warning with a personal note about what is and isn't acceptable and advise him that further disruption or personal attacks will result in a revocation of his editing. Then I'd suggest watchlisting his page and keeping an eye on his contributions. Warnings sometimes take a little while to really sink in. --jonny-mt 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "Jews". Where did you get that idea? I was talking about people who try to insert their religious beliefs into Misplaced Pages in ways that would mislead some readers into thinking it was history. The "Land of Israel" article with maps is a prime example. I actually assumed it was mostly Christian fundamentalists doing this. Fourtildas (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do realize that it doesn't really matter who you were talking about, the comment was still wildly inappropriate, right? At Misplaced Pages, civility is one of our most cherished values. Hostile comments like the one you made at Talk:Israel do nothing to improve the article and only serve to hurt feelings and make the editing climate more tense. Please, cease and desist. L'Aquatique 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I need to get some sleep now, but I will write a personally tailored warning tomorrow and hopefully this can be sorted out with a minimum of fuss. : ) L'Aquatique 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef banned user User:DavidYork71 again

editing as User:LapsAndLapsAhead. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This should go to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets. Admiral Norton 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:POINT / SockPuppetry / ... by User:barryispuzzled.

Cf. this edit on User_talk:Barryispuzzled. Barryispuzzled, Felsommerfeld, Bodleyman, and Tokomak1689 are listed as admitted sockpuppets. Barryispuzzled has identified himself as Barry R. Clarke (but while plausible, has not been verified). The two former have been taking a series of extreme positions in the Talk pages of various fringe theory articles (the Shakespeare authorship related articles), and skirted the edges of several Misplaced Pages policies (tendentious editing, edit-warring, NPOV, WP:POINT, AGF, etc. etc.).

I'd like to request that admins take a good long look at all the edits made from these accounts (particularly over the last month or so, but I suspect previous history will reveal more relevant edits). It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to do a checkuser to determine whether these users are in fact sockpuppets, and if so whether he has any more accounts.

Other editors have jumped through burning hoops to assume good faith on the part of these users, to help them participate productively on Misplaced Pages, and to deal with the fallout of the various edit wars, Talk page meltdowns, etc.. Several have given up in disguset or burned out over the conflict and controversy generated by, among others, the actions of these editors.

If it turns out that these actions have been deliberate, bad faith, attempts to disrupt Misplaced Pages, and that the apparent admission of sockpuppetry is accurat, I would suggest actively banning these users and any other sockpuppets a checkuser might turn up.

(Note I've thankfully never had to ask for admin review/intervention before so I hope I've posted in the right place and followed the ce correct procedures / policies. Please let me know if I've messed up on any count.) --Xover (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that user is still active and still pushing for "his" version of the Baconian theory (cf. this edit) despite the message admitting (plausibly) to running several sockpuppet accounts. He's also apparently playing some kind of game cf. this edit and this edit. --Xover (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has a hidden agenda and is trying to dismantle the Baconian article. Puzzle Master (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, based on an AIV report, I blocked a bunch of obvious socks who were vandalizing Baconian theory. They are Looneytune007 (talk · contribs), DigbyDaDog (talk · contribs), Anneharky (talk · contribs), and Picksauce (talk · contribs). I then semi-protected the page. The socks superficially appear to be barryispuzzled (talk · contribs). I also reverted a personal attack he made on his user talk page. I see now that this appears to be part of a larger ongoing dispute, but unfortunately I will be away from a computer for the next week or so and will not be able to monitor the situation. To any administrator that looks into this issue, please feel free to alter/undo the protection of that page and deal with the apparent abuses by barryispuzzled (or others) as you see fit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

barryispuzzled is the most evil person on Misplaced Pages. He makes numerous sockpuppets and tries to defend an article he created from people who turn up appearing to be helpful but actually have hidden agendas. Like Smatprt who wants as much Oxfordian material in the Baconian article as he can get away with. Like Xover comes on the article Talk page and talks to me nicey nicey pretending he wants to help but really intends to rewrite the article with Stratfordian bend. By the way, I know I'm wasting my time telling you this because I've asked for protection for the Baconian theory article before on this board but did anyone help? So I want it locked down for a period, maybe, a month so these wolves in sheeps clothing can't get their paws on it. You can if you want, completely miss the point and ban me but I have no faith in Administrators anyway. Never gave me help when I cried out for it. Puzzle Master (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. I'd like you to give me a substantial ban because I know how much fun it is for you to have found a GENUINE bad guy you can release your wrath onto. It's easy to collectively bully someone (after all, manufacturing a common enemy tends to bind people together) from behind a computer screen isn't it, gentlemen. See my personal statement here. Puzzle Master (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Julie Dancer, repeated personal attack and harrassment

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)#How strange? - personal attack after final warning given; repeated harassment emails to me and User:Kevin (see User talk:Kevin), as well as a professor at my school whom I have no relations with...--Jiuguang (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one week, given that there was a previous final warning. I disabled e-mail, as well, given the concern above. It's clear that she is passionate about her chosen subject, which is good in itself - but this goes way, way too far. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also received e-mails from Julie Dancer. Be advised that they have many sock puppets and are likely to continue harassment using these; I advise blocking all of them for a similar period. Dcoetzee 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrilling. Is there an SSP or RFCU page I should see? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Julie Dancer. Also, a new User:Kadiddlehopper have joined in on the discussion using similar tactics, and based on this removed talk page content here, the user has a history of sock-puppetry and antisemitic attacks. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SPA for stiring up trouble

Someone's mad at me: . NJGW (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Join the club. Blocked. MastCell  16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Randy Pausch

Randy Pausch was a Unitarian Universalist. It deserves mention and has been omitted from his biography.

Randy Pausch was "a Unitarian Universalist who first came to (the) faith as a member of the First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania".

Source: http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/117142.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan bromirski (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This should really be discussed on the Randy Pausch talk page, not here. I'm not sure what you'd need administrator action for in this case. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gcarini

This user is a hot-blooded A.C. Milan fan who likes to push unconfirmed transfer moves without any sort of official announcement. He also managed to call me a "fool" , threatening me to push "a complaint against me" , and defining me "hardly unbiased" and with a "ridiculous and biased attitude". It's not the first time this user acts this way, he called another Wikipedian a "liar" , and another one as "rubbish" . Since I am a Misplaced Pages administrator, and a long-time WP:FOOTY user with plenty of valuable and recognized contributions in Italian football articles (including even AC Milan's article), I feel these attack words as offensive against me. Obviously I am not going to block him as one of the involved parties, but please have a couple words with him, I'd like to avoid situations like these in the future. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Self promotion on external links

Canadian (talk · contribs) wants to make more friends and has added external links to his various profiles on dozen of articles on social networking sites(e.g.: ). I've reverted some, but I think admins have some magic wand to do this in batch. Would anyone help? --Damiens.rf 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Warned for addition of spam links. Juliancolton 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done –xeno (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate review of block

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

TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for two weeks by an involved admin, seemingly for taking part in calm and polite discussion on a talk page (link). EmpireForever (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure it's quite like that. I will look into it, though. But I am curious, EmpireForever, how such a new user as yourself forms an opinion of this block just moments after it happened, found this page so quickly. Jonathunder (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, however this recently archived thread might add a few details to the mix here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The block does not make sense to me, I have already left a note to the blocking admin that if he cannot make it make sense I will reverse it soon. This seems like a content issue to me. Chillum 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While I would like to hear from the blocking administrator, I am a bit confused as to what exactly the block was issued for. Tiptoety 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Huh?" was my reaction when I read the block log and message. But I'd like to hear from the blocking admin too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I have waited 15 minutes, and I am waiting another 5. DD was there a moment ago when he did the block, if he is not here to explain it now when it really needs explaining then I will just go ahead with the unblock. I still will want to hear from the blocking admin regardless. Chillum 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay DD responded, but I still support an unblock. This is far too deep into the waters of telling people what content disputes they can participate in which is beyond the remit of admins. We don't get to tell people what they can and cannot debate then block them when they do it in a polite manner. Chillum 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a block is not to be used in that manner, thats what a ban is for and Ddstretch can not just ban someone because he feels like it. This appears to be an issue that needs a better solution than a block. Tiptoety 18:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, he's saying that TharkinColl was being disruptive (pointy)? I'm don't think it'd warrant two weeks in the same way as the other blocks...but I want to look at the circumstances behind those blocks first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this feels like a block that should be undone. Would Ddstretch be willing to do so himself? MBisanz 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree the block should be undone. Prodego 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just can't see the disruption, I have looked over all his contribs for the last week. It seems his only wrongdoing was taking an opposing point of view. If there are disruptive edits please provide diffs because I don't see it. Chillum 18:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the disruption either, but give me 5 minutes in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My read: It looks like Tharkun started a discussion here, at Talk:Terminology of the British Isles. DDstretch then disagreed with the proposal, and expressly asked Tharkun not to discuss it until others had had a chance to opine on the matter, here. Tharkun responded anyway, here, and DD noted the fact here. Tharkun then replied with "...And if I asked you to go and jump off a cliff, would you?", which immediately resulted in his block by DDstretch for "(Disruptive editing: failure to abide by polite requst not to respond for a while, wich fits in with immediately preceding editing which resulted in articles being protected, etc.)" The Block and jump-off-a-cliff comment were both at 17:26 UTC. It's clear that DD was involved in the discussion with Tharkun, and that he asked Tharkun to delay responding until others had done so as well. Tharkun was under no policy obligation to do so, and chose not to - and DD blocked him. I would support an unblock, but I would also recommend strongly that Tharkun and DD stay the hell away from each other, as it's clear that they are not quite getting along, and further debate would enflame matters. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(a number of e/c here now) I have had a number of edit conflicts that, combined with the time taken to type in my justification, has meant that things got delayed. I will reproduce my comments here if required, but they are now on TharkunColl's talk page.

(Added afterwards: you need to consider the prior history of The editor, and his actions wich I viewed as disruptive. I, however, accept that my action was probably not as justified as I first thought, but still believe the editor's actions are unduly provocative.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think it should be taken into account that this user has been blocked nine times by nine different admins (I could be off by one here, depending on how you count them) - inccluding a previous two-week block. This is not unprecedented for this user. Tan ǀ 39 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) I'm not a big fan of admin-abuse threads filed by obvious socks, so I my immediate reaction was a bit skeptical. Still, after looking at this, I think it should be handled by other means and that TharkunColl should be unblocked. As best I can tell, an admin involved in talk page discussion asked a question on an article talk page, and asked TharkunColl specifically not to answer it. When TharkunColl answered anyway, he was blocked by the same admin for 2 weeks. I don't think the tools should be used to enforce an involved admin's idea of how a talk-page discussion should proceed. Tharkun shouldn't have commented, but a better response when he did would have been just to ignore him, not to block him for 2 weeks. Anyhow, I'd favor an unblock and a friendly outside request to Tharkun to let other editors weigh in on the talk page in question. MastCell  18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing strong consensus for a unblock here, Ddstretch are you willing? Tiptoety 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I agree with MastCell above. Blocking in this instance was not the most helpful action. I support the unblock. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He has already. Chillum 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. I agree - I don't think the past instance is comparible to this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Elaborated what I meant on his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Tiptoey,and e/c again) Of course I am willing, and I did part of it, but it is a bit frustrating to be asked to unblock, and to get halfway through it and then to discover someone else has completed it, making it appear that I was unwilling!  DDStretch  (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that is unfortunate timing, however I certainly believe you were willing and even on your way to do it. Chillum 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

@ DDStretch, while it may have been poor timing, I think your response to the unblock request speaks buckets of your willingness. Tiptoety 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did the unblock before you posted your notice. I checked out the situation and what immediately led up to it, and decided that the two-week block for "failure to abide by a simple request" was a bad block. (See, I'm learning something after my fiasco last Saturday with Kmweber (talk · contribs) and Bedford (talk · contribs).) --Elkman 18:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1. http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
2. http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards